Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1990–91

Ordered,
That there be laid before the House accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1990–91, showing:

(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1991.
(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Textile Industry

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to assist job creation in the textile industry in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): The Department of Employment delivers a wide range of training, enterprise and employment measures through the Employment Service, training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland.
Other agencies, including the Rural Development Commission, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, play an important role in encouraging and stimulating enterprise in many sectors, including textiles, in rural areas.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that countries such as Spain are considered suitable cases for special EC support because 18 per cent. of their work force are directly involved in textiles? Is the Minister aware that districts in the United Kingdom such as my own. south-east Scotland, have similar percentages of people employed in textiles but do not qualify for either national or European support? Will he assure us that he will talk with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that the resources available to local enterprise companies and training and enterprise councils are sufficient to enable them to support the existing textile industry and promote diversification?

Mr. Jackson: I very much appreciate the importance of the knitwear and textile industry in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Although the unemployment rate in his constituency is well below the Scottish, and indeed the British, average, the textile industry in his district is going through bad times. The Government are helping to

diversify: Scottish Borders LEC is purchasing Jedburgh information centre to help promote tourism, and the food processing and fish farming industries are developing and being supported in the district. Scottish Enterprise and Lothian and Edinburgh LEC are taking important steps to develop designer knitwear initiatives within the textile industry. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland, as it falls to him to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the designation of the district for European Community purposes.

Sir John Farr: Will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of starting a form of the small engineering and firms investment scheme for small textile and knitwear firms in rural districts to encourage them to modernise and to re-equip their companies with up-to-date machines?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend's question is one for my colleague the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. One problem with my hon. Friend's suggestion is that there are European Community rules on the subsidies given to the textile and other industries. However, I shall refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. McMaster: How can we believe that the Minister is serious about creating jobs in the textile industry when he will not even protect the ones that already exist? Is he aware that when the Conservative party came to power in 1979 many thousands of people were employed in the thread industry in Paisley and now only one mill remains, which employs 340 people and is threatened with closure this year? Is he going to stand by complacently while more and more people join the dole queues, or will he take action to save the jobs in the textile industry in Paisley?

Mr. Jackson: We all know that the textile industry is an important industry which currently employs 400,000 people—48,500 of whom are employed in Scotland. During the past 10 years, the industry has been protected by the multi-fibre arrangement. The success of companies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my constituency and elsewhere in the country depends on their efforts, and the Government can do only a limited amount. The textile industry is still successful and employs many people, but its success depends on its own efforts.

Job Training, Chelmsford

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Essex TEC to discuss job training in Chelmsford.

Mr. Jackson: My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of Essex training and enterprise council on 28 November. He is aware of the excellent contribution that Essex TEC is making to the training and enterprise needs of the area, but he has no plans to visit it in the immediate future.

Mr. Burns: When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of Essex TEC in Chelmsford, will he congratulate him on the splendid work that that TEC is doing in encouraging job creation, which in the past six months has led to 315 new small businesses starting in that area? Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agree that that belies the guffaws and


complaints of the moaning Minnies on the Opposition Benches, who constantly do down the excellent training that is available throughout Essex and the rest of the country?

Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, which were heard also by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I will convey them to Essex TEC, which is doing an excellent job. Its current budget is £28·75 million, which is a substantial sum from the taxpayer. It has 4,400 young people in youth training places and 1,300 people in employment training places. I am glad that my hon. Friend appreciates the good job that that TEC is doing.

Mr. Ashton: Is not it a fact that all those training places were not needed in Chelmsford in 1979 because the young people there had jobs then, under a Labour Government? Is not unemployment the reason for the massive increase in the number of training places?

Mr. Jackson: The whole House will be rather amused by the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. We all remember the serious problem of increasing youth unemployment in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Our training programmes—which are operating on a scale two and a half times larger in real terms than those of the last Labour Government—arose as a response to that problem, which existed when Labour was in office but about which that Government did nothing.

Overseas Visitors

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the volume and value of overseas visitors for 1992; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The British Tourist Authority's latest forecasts are that there will be 18·3 million overseas visits to the United Kingdom in 1992, resulting in expenditure of around £8 billion—8 per cent. higher than the estimated expenditure for 1991.

Mr. Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend on those excellent estimates. Does he agree that it is about time that Labour acknowledged the importance of tourism, rather than keep referring to jobs in a Mickey Mouse and candy floss industry? Will my hon. Friend consider instituting a national tourism week, such as that organised in the United States, to draw attention to the importance of tourism and to its employment factor? Furthermore, will my—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions are enough.

Mr. Gregory: A national tourism week would draw attention to the growing importance of tourism in the United Kingdom.

Mr Forth: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the way in which the Opposition persistently regard jobs in tourism without any seriousness, given the major contribution that tourism consistently makes to the economy of my hon. Friend's constituency and to the whole country. My hon. Friend works very hard with local tourist bodies to promote York as a tourist centre, and very successfully too. I will certainly bring my hon.

Friend's imaginative suggestion of a national tourism week to the attention of the tourist authorities to see whether they can take it up positively.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister acknowledge that we on these Benches recognise the importance of the tourist industry to Wales? However, whereas the Scottish tourist board is entitled to market Scotland overseas, the position in Wales is not the same. What is the Government's attitude to the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), to give Wales equality of treatment in that regard?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's Bill has received close scrutiny and attention by the Government, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the outocme of those deliberations will be known to the House shortly.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why we are so successful in attracting visitors from overseas is the strength of the United Kingdom market? Will he congratulate the English tourist board on its initiatives in promoting domestic tourism, and consider what more can be done to highlight its profile—just to perk up the aspidistras in guest houses and hotels throughout the south of England and elsewhere?

Mr. Forth: Yes. I am happy to pay tribute to the excellent efforts made by all tourist boards and authorities throughout the United Kingdom which in their different ways do a splendid job of promoting this country's tourist potential. Some 17 million or 18 million people from abroad choose to visit this country each year. That alone is a testament to the excellent work that is done. A large number of those visitors end up on the Isle of Wight. I am surprised that, on this rare occasion, my hon. Friend did not mention the Isle of Wight, so I am delighted to do so—and to pay tribute to the work that he consistently does on behalf of his constituents.

Industrial Relations

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I have regular discussions with representatives of the CBI on a wide range of issues, including the long-term improvement of industrial relations. I have at present no plans for a meeting on the particular subject mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the law can help to improve industrial relations, it is not enough in itself? When he next meets representatives of the CBI, will he impress on them the importance of greater employee participation as a means of improving industrial relations in the long term?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it was for that reason that, together with the CBI, I launched an initiative to increase employee participation in industry. I also launched a similar initiative in the European Social Affairs Council.
It is of the utmost importance that we encourage employee participation to take place on a voluntary basis,


in the way that best reflects the circumstances of each firm and industry, and not as a result of some statutory straitjacket imposed by Brussels.

Mr. Wallace: I accept that employee participation should be tailor-made for each industry. Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that, if industries are not willing to act accordingly, a backstop must be provided to prevent some employees from being deprived of their rights of participation?

Mr. Howard: No employees are deprived of their rights of participation. When it comes to consultation and employee involvement, however, it is very much better for such processes to take place on a voluntary basis. I believe that the best practices of British industry are second to none in the world; our task must be to encourage others to follow the lead that has been set by the best in industry. That was the purpose of the campaign that I launched with the CBI.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that the introduction of a minimum wage would harm industrial relations, rather than enhancing them? The sense of self-worth and the demonstration by employers of the value that they place on employees are best created by the existence of true differentials.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absoutely right. Not only would a national statutory minimum wage destroy countless jobs; one of the greatest problems that it would cause would be the maintaining of such differentials. Strife would inevitably arise as better-paid workers sought to maintain them. My hon. Friend has identified one of the most damaging consequences of the measures proposed by Labour.

Mr. Ron Brown: Should not all anti-trade union laws be scrapped if workers are to have a real right to defend themselves—or does that not matter nowadays?

Mr. Howard: It is interesting to hear the lion. Gentleman explain the reality behind the small print of Labour's proposals in such graphic terms.

Mr. Hayward: When my right hon. and learned Friend discusses industrial relations with the CBI, will he compare the position in the United Kingdom with that in France? France has recently experienced strikes in the rubbish collection industry, the ports, air traffic control and the railway industry—and they have taken place under a socialist Government. Does not that compare dramatically with the present position in this country?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend correctly identified the position in France—a position with which this country would be faced if Labour were ever returned to office. More strikes took place in the last year of Labour Government than have taken place in the past six years put together.

Employment Opportunities, Tameside

Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State Employment what action he intends to take to increase employment opportunities in Tameside.

Mr. Jackson: The Employment Service and Manchester training and enterprise council deliver a wide

range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in the creation of employment opportunities in Tameside, as elsewhere.
In the 12 months to December 1991, Employment Service jobcentres in Tameside placed 7,119 people in jobs, and in Manchester placed 48,904 people in jobs.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that, in Tameside, unemployment has risen by a staggering 63 per cent. in the past 18 months? Although unemployment is high in other Greater Manchester boroughs, because of the benefit obtained from urban programme status, it is rising less fast in those boroughs. Will the Minister join me in urging the Secretary of State for the Environment to give Tameside similar status, so that it can offset the terrible waste of talent in the borough?

Mr. Jackson: I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Gentleman's point about Tameside. To set unemployment in context, of course it has risen in Tameside, as elsewhere. It is striking, however, that Britain has a higher proportion of its population of working age in work than any other country in Europe, apart from Denmark. We should set that fact in the context of any rise in unemployment.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that development corporations in Tameside, which adjoin my constituency, have greatly benefited jobs in the area? Did not a Labour Government want to abolish them?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is well-informed about his area. It is important to note that jobs continue to be created. A total of 25 per cent. of those who sign on as unemployed find jobs within one month, 50 per cent. find jobs within three months and two thirds find jobs within six months. There is a continuing flow through the register and there are job opportunities for people who will take them.

Skill Training

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage the development of community-based skill-training schemes.

Mr. Howard: The Government have given training and enterprise councils the responsibility and resources to plan and deliver training which is most appropriate to meet local needs.

Mr. Wareing: What the Secretary of State said will be news to Hexagon Community Ltd. in East Lancashire road in Liverpool, which has found that the TEC in our area has abolished allowances for protective clothing and in many other spheres, as well as cutting the unit cost paid per person so that the entire staff has taken a pay reduction in the past few months. Is not it about time that the Government showed that they have a real commitment to training by encouraging self-help enterprises such as that in my constituency? Is not it appalling that those people, who give so much of their time, should be facing restrictions while the Secretary of State hides behind the skirt of TECs which have been created as shock absorbers for this dreadful Government?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he supports his party's policy on the training


and enterprise councils. We are assured constantly by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that the Opposition support TECs, are enthusiastic about the idea and wish them to continue. Training and enterprise councils are responsible for dealing with matters in their area.
The hon. Gentleman talks about resources. We are spending two and a half times as much in real terms as the Labour party spent when it was responsible for these matters. The hon. Gentleman must know that this is not one of the two immediate spending priorities to which the shadow Chief Secretary has signed up. He should face up to reality—drop the pledge or own up to the tax.

Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government have spent more on training than Labour did when it was in power, even taking account of inflation? Does he agree that we need no lectures on training from Opposition Front Benchers, because they have objected to employment training, the youth training scheme and every other training proposal that we have made?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Before they start trying to lecture us on training, the Opposition—particularly the shadow spokesman on employment—would be well-advised to persuade the Transport and General Workers Union to drop its boycott of youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils.

Mr. Leighton: Are not training programmes such as youth training and employment training predicated on employer participation but, because of the recession, the employers have contracted out, causing a crisis? We therefore need community programmes, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), which are more expensive. Will the Secretary of State undertake to give extra resources to those programmes so that the ET and YT guarantees can be implemented? They are not being implemented now.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept either of the assumptions on which the hon. Gentleman's question is predicated. It is incorrect to say that employers have contracted out. Every recent survey has shown that many more employers are maintaining or increasing their training than are reducing it. Over 90 per cent. of employers who responded to a recent survey said that they were providing as much, or more, off-the-job training as they were a year ago. So, the hon. Gentleman is being far too pessimistic about the employers' commitment to training.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, despite the Opposition's opposition to every scheme that the Government have introduced in the past 12 years, there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of people entering training schemes?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend draws attention to the substantial increase in the number of people now taking advantage of Government-sponsored training opportunities, but, of course, there has also been a tremendous increase in the training provided to people in work—an 85 per cent. increase between 1984 and 1990. We are making

great strides in the provision of training—employer-financed training and Government-financed training—and it is about time that the Opposition recognised that progress instead of constantly carping and criticising.

Mr. Blair: As the recession is now much deeper and more pervasive than Ministers are prepared to admit and as we have the fastest rising unemployment in Europe, how can the Secretary of State justify cutting 110,000 places for training young people and the unemployed at the very time when the recession is hitting hardest?

Mr. Howard: It is absolutely no use the hon. Gentleman banging on about resources, given that he has failed to persuade the shadow Chief Secretary that that should be one of the Opposition's two immediate spending priorities. Drop the pledge or own up to the tax.

Catalytic Converters

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the numbers currently employed in the manufacture of catalytic converters for the automobile and transport industry.

Mr. Forth: There are no separate estimates available for the manufacture of catalytic converters.

Dr. Howells: The Minister will be aware that British firms such as Johnson Matthey are at the leading edge of this technology. Is he also aware that in scientific and engineering circles there is much concern that the Government's indolence and reticence in supporting long-term investment in research and development in the leading technology will result in our suffering badly in comparison with our major competitors?

Mr. Forth: That matter is not strictly for me, but is one for my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that this country's record in research and development—in the private and, indeed, in the public sector—will bear scrutiny and comparison with that of most, if not all, others. The very fact that we have in this country possibly the leading manufacturer of such a high technology product which is so essential to environmental and pollution control in the future surely bears testimony to that and sits ill with the fact that the hon. Gentleman has sought to raise the subject of our lack of technology and R and D while in the same breath mentioning a world-leading company.

Mr. Madel: If we can get more cars sold on the domestic market, we can get more catalytic converters made. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish the 10 per cent. car tax in the Budget?

Mr. Forth: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in using this question to raise what is undoubtedly an important matter. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury are very much aware of my hon. Friend's point. I take this opportunity to remind them of it and I am sure that they will take it fully into account in their pre-Budget deliberations.

Unemployment, West Cumbria

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for the reduction of unemployment in west Cumbria.

Mr. Jackson: The Employment Service and Cumbria training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help employment prospects for unemployed people living in west Cumbria as elsewhere. A package of measures to help the area, announced by the Government in June 1991, includes the establishment of an action team to support local initiatives and a £15 million English Estates programme to provide new sites, factories and work space in Copeland and Furness.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have an answer in a word of one syllable? Is the Minister satisfied that the resources in terms of the manpower and finance available to Cumbria TEC are sufficient to deal with the thousands of redundancies that are to be made at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield and also to deal with those now being announced by a number of companies in west Cumbria?

Mr. Jackson: I should like to oblige the hon. Gentleman with a short answer, but it is difficult to encapsulate these things. I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss those matters with him in my office and I understand the seriousness of unemployment in his constituency. We keep the question of resources for the training and enterprise councils under review. Government support for employment creation in the hon. Gentleman's area does not come only through the TECs. A number of initiatives are coming forward, such as regional development assistance and the special measures which have been announced. All of them are important and I will continue to keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman about them.

Jobcentres

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobcentres there are.

Mr. Howard: At the end of November, the Employment Service had a total of 954 local offices offering full jobcentre services.

Mr. French: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the great improvement in the services, management and organisation of jobcentres. Is he aware that it is a great advantage to have the unemployment benefit office and the jobcentre under the same roof, as we have in Gloucester, and will he ensure that more offices are organised in that way?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is our intention to spread across the country the advantages of integrated jobcentres. Through the Employment Service, we are this year helping some 840,000 people with places on our programmes. We expect the number to approach 1 million next year.

Mr. McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware that our jobcentres now face an increasing demand for their services? Is that any wonder when from the second quarter of 1990 to the second quarter of 1991 employment has

grown by 300,000 in Italy, 200,000 in France, and 637,000 in Germany, while in the United Kingdom it has fallen by 706,000? Will the Secretary of State now own up to this unique recession which is causing so much damage and overworking so many of our jobcentres?

Mr. Howard: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), a few moments ago when he pointed out that we have a greater proportion of people in work than any European country except Denmark and more women at work than any other EC member state. There are some 2·5 million more jobs in this country than there were in 1983 and we have an unprecedented record of job creation. As we emerge from recession as a result of the Government's policies, we shall be in a position to create jobs again in the 1990s on the scale achieved in the 1980s.

Youth Training

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to initiate an immediate programme of youth training in Crewe and Nantwich.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Lady calls for the Government to "initiate" an "immediate programme" of YT in Crewe and Nantwich. She will be interested to learn that in the past year the proportion of 16-year-olds in Crewe participating in full-time education and training has risen from 71 to 80 per cent. That seems pretty "immediate" to me.
Moreover, the South and East Cheshire training and enterprise council is currently spending £5·5 million on youth training—a sum infinitely larger than that spent in the area by the previous Labour Government, of which the hon. Lady was such a notable adornment.

Mrs. Dunwoody: In reply to a written question, the Minister told me yesterday that 55 per cent. of school leavers in the South and East Cheshire training and enterprise council area are going straight into youth training. He will also know that we have had a 47 per cent. rise in unemployment in my constituency in one year. Would he like to try to justify that to the young people who have no jobs and no hope of any being created under the present Government?

Mr. Jackson: Unemployment is a fact and we deplore it. The hon. Lady's question, however, concerns youth training and implies that no youth training is available in her constituency. Her reference to my earlier answer shows that there is extensive provision of youth training in her constituency, on a far larger scale than ever before, and that people in her constituency are taking advantage of it.

Mr. Rowe: Was it not a Front-Bench spokesman of the party of which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is a member who promised the 1990 Labour party conference that Labour would abolish youth training altogether?

Mr. Jackson: The Labour party's record on youth training—and, indeed, on the whole range of training initiatives which have have come from the Government in the past decade—is deplorable. Opposition Members,


especially those associated with trade unions which have been boycotting our training efforts, would do well to recognise that.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear from the figures for Crewe, and from the naional figures which show that nearly 100,000 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are still looking for training places, that the Government are failing our school leavers? What sort of future are the Government building for a generation of school leavers who will go from school to the dole queue?

Mr. Jackson: I do not accept the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. Hundreds of thousands of young people are on YT, and doing increasingly well on YT in terms of qualifications and of jobs on emerging from it. We are monitoring the position on the YT guarantee, to which we are firmly committed, and we are making additional resources available as and where necesary. We have not had a request for additional resources for YT in South and East Cheshire; there does not seem to be pressure in that area. We are sticking by the YT guarantee—an important guarantee which never existed in the days of the Labour Government.

Part-time Work

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number and percentage of the United Kingdom work force currently in part-time work.

Mr. Howard: In June 1991, the latest date for which information is available, part-time employment in Great Britain was 6,491,000, or 25 per cent. of the work force in employment. Figures for part-time working in Northern Ireland are not available.

Mr. Battle: I am slightly surprised by the Minister's answer, because, as recently as 16 December, he said in a parliamentary answer that new earnings survey coverage of part-time workers was not comprehensive and, more importantly, that many part-time workers earnings below the income tax threshold were not covered. In view of the Government's admission that they do not know the facts about part-time work, why have they set their face against protection and safeguards for part-time workers? Or are the Government saying that, under economic policy, part-time women workers are expendable?

Mr. Howard: I have given the hon. Gentleman the figures which exist. He must recognise that no one will thank him for his vendetta against part-time work. Only 6 per cent. of those who engage in part-time work do so because they cannot get full-time jobs. We are interested in promoting part-time work and increasing the number of part-time jobs available, not diminishing it by imposing on such jobs the kind of restrictions that the Labour party is keen to see in place.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many women in Britain welcome part-time work because it fits in with caring for children and the family generally? We need no lessons from the Opposition who make rude comments about part-time jobs, saying that they are not real jobs. Many women think that they are real jobs and want more of them to be available.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She understands the needs of her constituents. The Labour party would subject part-time workers to national insurance contributions and would burden employers to the extent that they could not afford to employ part-time workers in the way that they now do, which would dry up the supply of part-time work, to no one's advantage.

Mr. Janner: Cannot the Minister see that there is no reason in logic, probably no reason in law, and certainly no reason in common sense, why part-timers should not have the same protections as full-time workers? Bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of part-timers in the United Kingdom are women, does not the lack of protection represent obvious indirect discrimination against women workers?

Mr. Howard: There is absolutely no question of discrimination.As a result of the Government's policies, there has been an unprecedented increase in part-time work, to the great advantage of those who benefit from it. The Labour party's policies would destroy those jobs.

Mr. Knapman: What would be the effect on the number of part-time jobs of introducing a national minimum wage?

Mr. Howard: As every independent survey has confirmed, there is no doubt that a national statutory minimum wage would destroy countless jobs. A large number of part-time jobs would doubtless be among those which would simply disappear if that disastrous policy were pursued.

Asbestos

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will issue guidelines on the handling of asbestos in factories and other places of work.

Mr. Forth: The Government have already published a comprehensive range of guidance on the handling of asbestos in factories and other places of work, in support of the legislation that we have introduced to reduce the risks from exposure to asbestos in the workplace. This guidance includes two approved codes of practice, nine Health and Safety Executive guidance notes on specific workplace-related matters and a number of free leaflets and priced booklets.

Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers share the concern of Bill Spiers and his colleagues in the Scottish Trades Union Congress about a matter that I have brought to the attention of the Department—that some insurance companies delay the finalising of asbestosis cases until the victims have died? If so, will the Government act on Lord Davidson's report in the event that it suggests a change in the law?

Mr. Forth: My colleagues in the Scottish Office are well aware of the criticisms of the present law. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, they referred the issue to the Scottish Law Commission in September 1989. The commission is expected to report soon and I am assured that its recommendations will be considered urgently by my colleagues in the Scottish Office. However, I will bring the hon. Gentleman's concern to Scottish Office Ministers


so that the matter may be given maximum attention and due regard may be paid to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Health and Safety Executive has received all the resources for which it has asked in recent years to enable it to carry out its various functions?

Mr. Forth: I am delighted to be able to assure my hon. Friend that the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, which each year make an estimate of the resources required to enable them to fulfil their statutory obligations, have received in full the amounts requested in recent years. Thus, they have been enabled to do a consistently excellent job in guaranteeing health and safety standards in the workplace. The standards in the United Kingdom are as good as those in many countries, and better than those in most.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Bearing in mind the fact that highly paid lawyers can secure massive libel settlements for their clients, can the Minister seriously justify the paltry payments which result from civil claims for compensation for negligence? In response to my hon. Friend's question, could he not simply have said that the Government accept that the disparity between English law and Scottish law is not tenable and that they will remedy it?

Mr. Forth: I think that I have given that assurance in so far as it is possible to do so at this stage. We have to bear it in mind that the Law Commission has not yet reported. If we are to take seriously the work done by a body such as the Law Commission, we must await the results of its deliberations and then act as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient. Perhaps he will have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose expertise in this matter is, I suspect, second to none. The hon. Member for Linlithgow will probably be able to provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress achieved by TECs in meeting their objectives.

Mr. Howard: Training and enterprise councils have made excellent progress. All 82 are now operational and they are developing a wide range of innovative approaches to meeting the objectives that I have agreed with them.

Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's reply. He will be aware of the progress being made by the training and enterprise council in Somerset and, in particular, the important role that it is playing in helping to set up an effective chamber of commerce and industry to represent and assist business in the county. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give me a pledge that he will do all that he can to help the Somerset TEC to maintain the quality of its youth training?

Mr. Howard: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that pledge. The Somerset training and enterprise council is making excellent progress in improving the training being provided in the county and tailoring it to suit local circumstances. What is being achieved is what we expect to see when training is placed in the hands of local

employer-led bodies, which are in the best possible position to ensure that the training is relevant to local circumstances.

Job Losses, Northumberland

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has of recent job losses in east and north-cast Northumberland.

Mr. Jackson: In the three months to June 1991, the civilian work force in employment in the Northern region fell by 15,000. I am afraid that my Department does not have up-to-date figures for smaller areas within those standard regions.

Mr. Beith: Surely the Minister is aware of the 300 jobs that were lost at the Alcan aluminium smelter and the 200 jobs which have gone from Ellington colliery. In those circumstances, does he recognise how vital it is to get European funds, genuinely additional to money being spent over here, so as to bring additional opportunities to areas that have been so hard hit? Will the Minister and his colleagues join in the fighting which seems to be going on in the Government and get the matter sorted out so that European funds can go to those areas?

Mr. Jackson: I had a very useful and interesting meeting with the hon. Gentleman and some of his constituents to talk about unemployment in his constituency, so I know of it at first hand from him. I certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He understands the problems of additionality. His remarks have certainly been heard and I will draw my colleagues' attention to them.

EC Social Policy

Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts on the implementation of the social action programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: I have frequent discussions, both at Councils of Ministers and individually with my EC counterparts, about measures brought forward under the Commission's social action programme. In those discussions, I emphasise that the United Kingdom expects to be able to support a majority of proposals under the action programme, while we shall continue to resist those which would damage jobs and competitiveness in this country.

Mr. Welsh: In talks with European colleagues, will the Secretary of State ensure that workers in this country are not left behind in terms of employment protection and rights? European competitors can afford to give greater rights and protection to women, the low-paid and part-time workers, so why should workers in this country be offered anything less?

Mr. Howard: Workers in this country will benefit from the greater flexibility with which British firms will be able to respond to the challenges that they will face in the 1990s, and we shall see more job opportunities created in this country as a result of the greater flexibility that will be available to us.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister take some time today to examine his pledge not to turn his back on Lanarkshire? Will he give a clear indication of the earnestness of that pledge by agreeing to meet the shop stewards of Dalzell plant, who have indicated that they have a plan guaranteeing the effectiveness of their own plant, together with continued steel production in Scotland? Does he accept that he has an obligation to honour that pledge by examining every possible avenue to maintain steel production in Scotland, and in particular not to turn his back on a plan which has shown great effectiveness?

The Prime Minister: I made my position clear in Scotland some time ago. We certainly would not abandon the people of north Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be seeking agreement from the European Community to establish an enterprise zone such as those which, in other parts, have been very successful. He will also know that in the past year we have provided about £120 million extra assistance for north Lanarkshire through the Scottish Enterprise fund, East Kilbride development corporation, the iron and steel employees readaption benefit scheme, the Scottish Development Agency and much else. I am sure that either my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to meet the shop stewards in Dalzell.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at a time of great international instability, the whole country welcomes his decision as chairman of the United Nations Security Council to call a meeting of that council later this month? Does not the acceptance of his invitation by President Bush, President Yeltsin, President Mitterrand and other world leaders prove the importance of that meeting? Is it not an insult to world leaders that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should describe that as grubbing around for a photo opportunity?

The Prime Minister: We have had a very favourable response from Heads of Government, all of whom share our view that the meeting offers a unique opportunity to reinforce the role of the United Nations as a peacemaker and peacekeeper, to look at the role that they can play in both disarmament and non-proliferation, and to reinforce the role that they can play in terms of improving good government and human rights records in a large number of countries. There has been unanimous acceptance by Heads of State and Government among Security Council members to attend. I hope and believe that it will be a useful and worthwhile occasion.

Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that conflicting views about the future of the railways are coming from No. 10 Downing street and from the Secretary of State for Transport? It is said that the Prime Minister has a view. May the House hear it today? There is an old saying, "This is no way to run a railway"—I suggest that this is no way to run a Government either.

The Prime Minister: On a non-controversial note, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 75th birthday today.
We are discussing within government the right way to take forward the privatisation of British Railways. Our aim is to ensure that passengers get a better deal as a result. We believe that the way to do that is to expose the railways to private sector disciplines. That is what we are discussing. In due course, when we have discussed the detail of how that will be brought about, we shall make a public statement.

Mr. Lawrence: Since raising the quality of life of the British people is one of the main aims of my right hon. Friend's Government, can we count on his support for my National Lottery Bill?

The Prime Minister: An important debate on my hon. and learned Friend's Bill is scheduled for this Friday. The Under Secretary of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will make the Government's position clear in that debate.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that it is still his view that, as he put it in his own words just a few weeks ago,
tax cuts in the … Budget
would be "unwise", would "recreate…problems" and would be "fools' gold"?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been misled. What I said in the interview in Harari, from which he has quoted, was that a reduction in interest rates just to stimulate the economy would he fools' gold—as it would be. However, to help the right hon. Gentleman, I went on to add that if there was a prospect of tax reductions, we would take it and give people the opportunity to spend their money in their own interests.

Mr. Kinnock: Everyone will have the opportunity to check the words used in that interview and everyone will have the opportunity to ask why, if those words are so wrong, they have not been corrected before now. Does not the Prime Minister recall saying in precise terms that tax cuts in the Budget before the election—as he is precisely quoted as saying—would be "unwise", would "recreate … problems", would be "unfair", would "hurt" people and would be "economic tricks"—[Interruption.] Is it not clear—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: As the hopes of Conservative Members fade, so their voices grow louder.
Is it not clear that what was fools' gold in October is fools' gold in January and would be fools' gold in March?

The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago—clearly, he was not listening


—the quotation that he used refers to a reduction in interest rates, not to a reduction in taxation. The right hon. Gentleman can check the quote—perhaps he should have done so before using it inaccurately. When it is prudent to make tax reductions, we shall make them, because we believe that people are better able to look after their own interests with their own money than any Government, however benevolent, would be. It is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to increase taxation. He proposes the sharpest increases in taxes that we have had in peacetime since the war. That is expressly not the policy of this Government.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman heads the Government who have imposed the highest tax burden in history on British families. He is the head of the party of high taxation. Why has he not the courage to stand by the words that he gave to his interviewer just a few months ago?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not repeat what he has twice been told is incorrect. If he is concerned about the level of taxation, he might perhaps explain to the country why he proposes to increase the rate of taxation if given the chance. He might also explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has suggested a luxury rate of value added tax, after all that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has said in recent weeks.

Mr. Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recall those heady days in the early 1980s when, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we changed industrial relations law? That has led to fewer days lost due to industrial action in Britain than in many of our competitor countries in Europe and abroad. Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report? Has he any comments? Will he continue to change industrial relations legislation to take further the Conservative progress which has helped democracy within trade unions and reduced the number of days lost to strikes?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that, as a result of the trade union reforms in the last decade, we have a far better record of industrial relations than our competitors elsewhere or than previously in Britain. When and where appropriate, we shall continue to make further improvements.

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fraser: Has the Prime Minister noted the remarks of the Minister for Public Transport about one class of service for business men and another, cheap and cheerful class of service, for typists? Despite the Minister's apology, does not that statement, accurately sum up the Government's policy on public services such as housing, education and health? The cheap and cheerful version of the service is hardly ever likely to be used by Cabinet Ministers or their families.

The Prime Minister: That is uncharacteristic, and I would not have expressed myself as my hon. Friend did. My hon. Friend has subsequently made it clear that he

regrets expressing his views in that way. If every politician in government or opposition were forced to apologise for injudicious remarks, few of us would be doing anything else.

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of discussions between the American company Kimberley Clarke and the Department of Trade and Industry, it is likely that a factory employing 800 people is to be built in my constituency? Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the DTI investment and the number of jobs to be created? Will he confirm that that is Conservative industrial policy working to the benefit of my constituency in particular and the country in general?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the proposed investment and job creation in my hon. Friend's constituency. The amount of grant offered is, of course, a confidential matter between the Department and the company. On the other specific questions that my hon. Friend asks, I will make inquiries and write to him. He is entirely right that inward investment is created by the right policies of deregulation and low taxation. The enormous amount of inward investment that we have seen in recent years would be lost if those policies were reversed.

Mr. Ashdown: Further to the Prime Minister's previous answer, does he not realise that, while he and his Chancellor argue about the Budget, and while his Cabinet is split on the matter, there is widespread public support for the view that at this time investment in the nation's future should come before cuts in the basic rates of tax? Is the Prime Minister saying that he disagrees with that view?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the importance of investment. Where I might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that investment is increased by increasing taxes.

Mr. Squire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of a dictator or an irresponsible third-world country acquiring any of the 27,000 nuclear weapons previously controlled by the Soviet Union is literally a terrifying thought? Against that background, does he further agree that to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent is as important and essential today as it ever has been?

The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The end of the Soviet empire creates a large number of opportunities, but also some dangers. We have to be prepared for both. The diminished threat to NATO gives us the opportunity to make prudent reductions in defence, but they must be prudent and it would at this stage be imprudent to lift our nuclear shield in any way.

Mr. Faulds: Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders that he should make a statement—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: rose—[interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is becoming disorderly.

Mr. Faulds: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to express his view as any other Member of the House.

Mr. Faulds: Hon. Members seem embarrassed by good works. Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders for him to make a statement urging stores not to break the Sunday trading laws? Did he simply lack the moral courage?

The Prime Minister: I have indicated the Government's position on Sunday trading laws in the House on a number of occasions. I am interested to note the hon. Gentleman's concern on behalf of the Churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not mention it to me on new year's day when we had lunch together.

Oral Answers to Questions — Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Ordered,

PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 13) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 2901) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 14) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 2902) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)

That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

Point of Order

Mr. Iain Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]—if hon. Gentlemen will allow me to speak. Can I draw your attention to a matter of confusion on Thursday, 21 November? I was shown in Hansard as voting, in the debate on the European Community, against a labour amendment in Division 14. That was correct. I was not shown as voting for the Government motion in Division 15. Subsequently, before I raised this matter with the Clerks, this was corrected. I am now shown correctly in Hansard as having voted for the Government in Division 15.
This is most important, as I believe that the Government were completely right. I can only suspect that the speed of my progress through the Division Lobby, as I was the second Member out that night, may have caused confusion. That was due to my enthusiasm for the excellent achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht. I could not move fast enough to support him. I congratulate the Clerks on having corrected this before I raised the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has now put the record straight.

Health Benefits

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend exemption from prescription charges to, and to make further provision for, persons in receipt of certain categories of benefit; to exempt from prescription charges the chronically ill and those over 60; and to exempt those over 60 from certain dental and optical charges.
If passed by the House, the Bill will reform fairly and effectively the forgotten area of the health benefits system. The present system is unwieldy, unnecessarily complex, inconsistent and over-bureaucratic. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly if they are not remaining for this ten-minute motion?

Mrs. Mahon: At present, health benefits are available to people who are eligible because they are exempt or who must claim on low-income grounds. The benefits are free prescriptions, optical and dental charges and help with fares to hospitals.
In its report "Health Warning", the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux highlighted deficiencies in the scheme in four respects. The first concerned simplicity. The rules are inconsistent because, for example, pensioners are automatically exempt from prescription charges but will qualify for help with other charges only if they have low incomes. Other people on incomes marginally above income support levels may get some help towards dental and optical charges but no help towards prescription charges.
The second deficiency concerned adequacy. The scheme aims to cover the cost of health charges so that the poorer sections of the community are not prevented from receiving health care by the cost. In practice, however, the scheme does not meet its objectives. Many thousands are deterred from claiming because of the complexity of the scheme, so many people go without vital treatment. There is also considerable evidence that even people entitled to, for instance, free glasses, must still contribute significant amounts to the cost, because the value of the benefit has not kept up with the cost of glasses.
The system has also failed on grounds of accessibility. NACAB's evidence shows that the scheme is about as accessible as Fort Knox. The relevant form is 20 pages long and contains more than 50 questions, and the 1 million people a year who labour to fill it in often fail to do so or are helped by relatives and friends; 100,000 go to the citizens advice bureaux for help. Even so, about 35 per cent. of those people—361,000—have their forms returned to them because they filled them in incorrectly. When I challenged the Secretary of State for Health to fill in the form, he not surprisingly refused. There is no comparison between this form and the one on which people claim for mortgage interest relief.
NACAB's fourth point is that the present scheme is deficient on grounds of equity. Anomalies cause confusion and anger among claimants. Often people entitled to free dental treatment find that they must contribute towards the cost of glasses, and the scheme cries out for reform. My Bill will effect just that. At a stroke, the need for 300 staff in the health benefit unit could end and they could be redeployed to improve other parts of the service.
This Bill proposes that health benefits be available free to all receiving means-tested benefits—for instance, the disabled working allowance benefit, due to begin in April 1992, could lead to claimants who take it up moving from income support to that benefit and thus losing the right to free prescriptions. That would cause considerable hardship.
My Bill proposes that people in receipt of this benefit and in receipt of poll tax benefit, invaliditity benefit, long-term sickness benefit, the severe disablement allowance, and mobility and attendance allowances should be exempt from prescription charges. Moreover, anyone categorised by his GP as chronically sick should be covered, as the list of prescribed illnesses is outdated.
People requiring regular medication would also be exempt from prescription charges. That would cover people with cystic fibrosis, inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, multiple sclerosis, cancer and a host of other long-term illnesses.
My Bill also seeks to right the serious and indefensible wrong brought about by the abolition of free eye and dental tests; and free prescriptions would be available to all over the age of 60. The Minister for Health sought to defend the indefensible when she wrote in a recent letter to The Guardian about the abolition of the tests. Her letter brought forth a torrent of rebukes from people far more expert than she—and far more caring.
Mr. Ian Hunter, Secretary General of the Association of Optometrists, wrote in reply to the Minister's letter:
To restart national health service eye examinations for the over 60s would now cost about £25 million but the cost for not doing so will be two or three times as much because eye disease will remain undetected until treatment is less effective and more expensive. The real social costs of blindness for some have also regrettably to be added.
I can only add that the abolition of free eye tests is the worst false economy imaginable, and could only be contemplated by such a short-sighted Government.
The present scheme's inadequacies are best highlighted by a constituent, Mr. Russell, who wrote to me on the advice of his local DSS office, which also thinks that the system is unfair. Mr. Russell lost out when he received a 6p rise which put him above the income support level. He lost entitlement to free prescriptions; he also had to pay £24 for

dental treatment, and he can no longer claim his hospital fares unless they cost more than £8·50. He concluded his letter:
The 6p rise I received means I am approximately £2·50 a week worse off. Surely this can't be right.
I agree with Mr. Russell.
Patients with mental illness are particularly vulnerable. My Bill would exempt many of them from prescription charges.
Charges have gone up 17 times under the Government. There has been a 600 per cent. increase, from 20p to £3·40, since 1979. They have created an intolerable burden on people on low incomes. Many people now go without the necessary treatment because they cannot afford prescriptions.
Even the Government have recognised the need for reform, although the review which they commissioned in 1990, which has yet to report, appears to have been an excuse for inaction. When it reports, it will address only the administration of the scheme and not the real solution, which would be to scrap the low income scheme and replace it with one based on exemptions.
The present scheme is bureaucratic, inconsistent and complex. We need in its place a scheme which is simple, fair and effective, one which people can understand and which delivers help for those who need it most. The scheme must be based on exemptions. My Bill would provide for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. John Battle, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. David Winnick and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

HEALTH BENEFITS

Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to extend exemption from prescription charges, and to make further provision for, persons in receipt of certain categories of benefit; to exempt from prescription charges the chronically ill and those over 60; and to exempt those over 60 from certain dental and optical charges: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Nuclear Defence

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate upon nuclear defence. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and that in view of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. If those who are fortunate enough to be called before make brief speeches, it may be possible to relax the limit.

Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will no doubt be aware of the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others calling for the scrapping of Trident and the decommissioning of Polaris. May I draw to your attention the fact that 130 members of the parliamentary Labour party, if not more, are also members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and therefore that that amendment represents the majority view within the Labour party?
In those circumstances, Sir, would it not be more appropriate if you called the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North rather than that in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, who apparently represents a minority view in his own party?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the selection of amendments is a matter for the Chair, and that I never give reasons for my decisions on such matters.

Mr. Roger King: rose——

Mr. Speaker: No doubt it will be possible to make these telling points in the debate.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a relevant point. As you have announced, this is a debate on nuclear arms and this country's defence policy. I am surprised that rumours are circulating that the Opposition spokesman who is to reply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is the shadow Foreign Secretary. Are we not entitled to a reply from a leading Opposition defence spokesman if this is to be a fair and proper debate? Could this position have arisen because the Opposition defence spokesman is not a member of the Shadow Cabinet and the issue of defence is so unimportant in the eyes of the Opposition that they have had to press-gang somebody else as a front man?

Mr. Speaker: It is no rumour—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will open from the Front Bench—but the Opposition spokesman on defence will wind up.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That this House supports unequivocally the concept of nuclear deterrence and the retention of a credible United Kingdom nuclear deterrent, while other countries have, or seek to acquire, nuclear weapons; notes the great dangers apparent in the increase in the number of countries gaining, or seeking to gain, access to nuclear weapons; understands that the country's nuclear deterrent remains essential for the defence of the United Kingdom and NATO; recognises the vital contribution to world peace which the United Kingdom's nuclear forces have made, and will continue to

make, through deterrence; and supports NATO's policy of also maintaining an up-to-date, sub-strategic nuclear capability based in Europe.
I notice that the words "nuclear defence" are absent from the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
I welcome the opportunity to debate in the House today the crucial issue of defence, particularly nuclear defence. it gives me an opportunity to report to the House on what, since we last met, have been the developments in the territory which represents the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and in which an extremely disturbing and alarming sequence of events is currently taking place, of which the House should take note.
When we debated related issues in November, the Soviet Union existed—now it does not. There was then a central control over the nuclear arsenal and assurances by President Gorbachev, Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, who had returned to government, and Marshal Shaposhnikov. We were also given what I suppose must be the shortest lived assurance of all time by General Lobov when he visited this country. When asked who was in charge of nuclear weapons, he said that he was, and two days later he was sacked. All those personalities and figures have gone.
I am sure that Opposition Members can occasionally show a sense of humour on the subject—I reflected how they must have felt as we watched the amazing pictures of the flag being lowered over the Kremlin. All those who had sung for so many years, "We'll keep the red flag flying here," could no longer stomach it being flown over the Kremlin.
Since then, in place of the USSR and President Gorbachev, there is the fragile creature of the Commonwealth of Independent States. While I am sure that all hon. Members wish it well and hope that it will be possible for a new relationship to develop, we must recognise that, as I speak to the House, there are continuing disputes between the republics over both nuclear weapons and their custody, and the conventional forces.
The House may know that one of the recent developments identified are changes in the communication patterns—the fact that some communications have been cut between existing headquarters and units whose allegiances have moved between central control and the republics. There have also been disputes about the strategic nature of the air force. We hope that the disputes over the Black sea fleet can be satisfactorily resolved.
I do not know how many hon. Members know that there was a public meeting in the Crimea attended by a substantial number of members of the Soviet fleet at one of the most acute moments of that dispute, at which a motion was overwhelmingly passed that the commanding admiral should be decleared president of an independent Crimea. We can see some of the tensions that affect the situation and the way in which they relate to military forces. Wholesale changes are occurring in the former Soviet Union's defence policy. We believe that, for the first time since records were kept in 1960, there is not a single combatant Soviet warship in either the Mediterranean or the Indian ocean. That is a measure of the withdrawal that is under way.
Although it is difficult to obtain accurate information about the Soviet Union's industrial situation and defence industries, we believe also that four out of five tank


factories have been closed, and that Russia is proposing to halt all production of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, small arms, and aircraft.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it not have been more appropriate if today's debate had been initiated by the Foreign Secretary, and had dealt with what steps could be taken—particularly by the west—to help the former Soviet Union to avoid anarchy and a return to dictatorship? Today's debate—as every right hon. and hon. Member and all the media know—is held because the Government are on the skids, terrified of holding a general election, and trying to deflect public attention from domestic issues.

Mr. King: That intervention did not do the hon. Gentleman justice, and he will excuse me if I do not deign to reply to it.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that—contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—with the majority of Members of Parliament in the Ukraine determined to go their own way, the House should address this issue, which is of crucial national importance?

Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) accepts that I am trying to set out as fairly as I can, on the basis of the best intelligence available to me, the current situation in the former Soviet Union. We make no apology for debating defence, but every time we do so, someone on the Opposition Benches says, "Talk about something else." We happen to believe that defence is of critical importance to our country.
At a time when the largest nuclear power that the world has seen is in the process of potential disintegration, we believe that we have a duty to tell the country where we stand. We as a Government do not shirk that responsibility, and any party with aspirations to government should not do so either.
Perhaps the most worrying feature is not the withdrawal from operational activity of the Soviet fleet, which might have been caused by fuel shortages or uncertainties about control at home, but that which we indentify as happening within the armed forces. [Interruption.] That situation may be a laughing matter to some, but its seriousness is of gravity to others.
There now appears to be virtually a total collapse in conscription. One might expect the strength of the Soviet conscript army to number between 650,000 and 750,000. The latest figures that I have make us doubt whether more than 20 per cent. of that figure have come forward this year. There is arguably a shortfall of half a million conscripts entering what were the Soviet armed forces.
In a sense, that is hardly surprising. There are uncertainties as to whether those personnel will get paid and fed, and whether there will be any housing for them.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Sounds like the British housing shortage.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman approaches the subject with his usual lack of seriousness, and looks for any opportunity to make a snide remark, in the way that he did in respect of the meeting between my right hon.

Friend the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin and President Bush. The right hon. Gentleman described that critically important meeting between world leaders as a glorified photo opportunity, which shows that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) fails to rise to such occasions with the seriousness that is needed.
Many of us had suspicions about the awfulness of the Soviet conscript system, and as discipline now breaks down and further information becomes available, the appalling problems that were already evident of trying to control a conscript system that attempted to meld as many as 30 different nationalities in one uniform armed force are becoming very clear.
We know of the contempt of the officer groups for their conscripts, and the arrogant, arbitrary and bureaucratic way in which they were treated. We know of the lack of control that that treatment reflected, which led, in turn, to the death of a number of officers. Hon. Members may know of the army's appalling record in that regard, and of the attacks that were made. We also know that there is no regular non-commissioned officer corps in the Soviet army system, and we are aware of the ill-discipline and criminality that have developed. Marshal Yazov, when he was Minister of Defence, estimated that up to 30 per cent. of conscripts entering the army either had criminal records or were known to the police for various reasons.
We know of the existence of gangs—of ethnic groups, for instance—and of the bullying and torture that have taken place. Some 4,000 conscripts die every year, of whom more than 1,000 may be suicides. A serious breakdown in discipline and morale has now been aggravated. The latest figures that I have received suggest that some 400,000 people are homeless, living either in tents or in the corners of barrack rooms. That problem is likely to worsen. The supply of food has broken down in some instances, and units are having to barter fuel supplies for food.
Because of the effects of inflation on the armed forces, a regimental commander may now earn half as much as a city bus driver. A sense of defeat and despair is affecting the forces. In recent years, they have been expelled from Afghanistan and East Germany; now, they face virtual expulsion from what they had thought was their country, in the shape of the Baltic states. The sense of alienation and desperation that exists not only in the officer corps, but throughout the armed forces, represents a very serious development. Although the current changes present no external threat at present, they pose a major threat within what was the Soviet Union, along with the risk that that represents.

Sir Patrick Duffy: The Secretary of State's description of a breakdown in social organisation must move some of us to wonder about its effect on morale within the unified structure of the armed services, especially that of the strategic containment forces, which are trying to exercise some control over nuclear weapons.
Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any assessment of the effectiveness of the command and control of those containment forces, given his conversation with General Lobov and the successor whom we know to have been appointed, and his meetings with Marshal Shaposhnikov? How effective is that crucial central command of nuclear weapons?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correctly identifying the reasons why I thought it important to set some of the background for the House. We are talking about the condition of the armed forces. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, different elements exist within those forces: that applies particularly to the elite forces, which have the particular responsibility of guarding nuclear weapons. While we may seek assurances, at the highest level, of the determination to ensure the most careful security in regard to such weapons, that security will ultimately be only as good as the commitment, morale and dependability of the people concerned.
That is the seriousness of the present position. I am talking about the morale not of some small, insignificant, backward country, but of a country that, through its obsession with armaments and defence expenditure, has made itself a major military super-power—a super-power that is now fast disintegrating, along with control. In such circumstances, a breakdown in morale is very serious.
I have not given the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) a clear answer, for the simple reason that I have been given assurances—I have mentioned the assurance that I received from General Lobov—which have been good for about 24 hours. That underlines the difficulty we face.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is it not clear from what the Secretary of State has been saying that the Soviet Union's possession of nuclear weapons was no guarantee of its security? That security has now broken down.
Is it not also clear that the army that has followed that disintegration is in no position to threaten this country, and, moreover, that the British Government and other western Governments for a long time did all they could to bring about the present situation? Part of western strategy was the encouragement of nationalism, and even of Islam—as was high defence expenditure in the Soviet Union.
Will the Secretary of State look again at Churchill's memorandum to the Cabinet, issued in 1918? Churchill warned the Cabinet then that the division of the Ukraine from Russia would pose a very serious danger. That memorandum is included in "The World Crisis: The Aftermath", and the right hon. Gentleman would do well to study it before he addresses us on the basis of his present approach.

Mr. King: I should take up too much of the House's time if I answered all those points.
I want to talk about the grave situation that we face and what we, together with NATO, our allies and the west, can best do to help meet it.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I have given way many times. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will hope to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and have an opportunity to make his speech.
Currently, there is a dangerously explosive mix of catastrophically low morale and a feeling of alienation.
Right hon. and hon. Members have said that we must welcome the changes in the sense of the end of the cold war and, we hope, the end of confrontation and the opportunities that will arise. However, because of the risks that remain, I wish to put soberly to the House the reasons for our belief in the continuing importance of nuclear defence.
We estimate that there are about 27,000 nuclear warheads within the Soviet Union and, of those, there are some 13,000 strategic nuclear weapons in the four republics—Russia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia. If they stayed as they were, it is significant that each of the republics would have more strategic nuclear weapons than China, and three, excluding Byelorussia, would have more than the United Kingdom.
The republics assure us that they will proceed with and honour the strategic arms reduction talks. If they continue with that and with the further reductions proposed by Mr. Gorbachev, they would halve their nuclear arsenal over the next 10 years. We estimate that 10 years is the minimum time that it would take to remove that number of nuclear weapons in a stable society with a well-organised system. At the end of that time—there are many qualifications to what I have said—the republics would still have 20 times more warheads than we have now. Within the territory which was the Soviet Union and which, if the plans go ahead, may be contained within what is now Russia, there will, for at least the next 20 years, be a substantial nuclear arsenal of strategic weapons. We must address that.
In addition to the strategic weapons, there is also the risk of tactical nuclear weapons, whether they be torpedoes, air-launched missiles or nuclear artillery shells. My best estimate shows that they are located on 100 sites in 13 different republics. Considerable effort has been made to withdraw them to within Russia. That is the objective, and it is hoped that it will be achieved by the middle of July. Some of those weapons are under the control of some of the elements to which I referred earlier, whose morale, must, at the very least, be described as extremely dubious.
We are concerned not just about the vast nuclear arsenal but, as I said in an earlier debate in the House, the technology and nuclear scientists. It has been suggested that there are some 3,000 nuclear scientists who could make a significant contribution in other countries that may be seeking to develop their weapons. My information is that at least one group of those nuclear scientists was not paid in December and that control of and responsibility for them appears to have broken down. We also have evidence that some countries are undoubtedly actively trying to enlist the services of some of those people, so the risk of proliferation has never been greater.
As some hon. Members may know, my colleague—or my friend—the United States Defence Secretary said yesterday that the United States estimates that nine third-world countries are likely to have nuclear weapons in 10 years. The news this morning of further developments in Iraq and the further evidence of the steps that some people have taken to pursue a covert programme is warning enough that some countries—some of them rich—are able to develop a substantial industrial programme.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. King: No, I am conscious of the time.
I deal now with what I believe our response should be. I welcome the new contacts that are developing, and I also welcome—as does the whole House—the meeting of what is called the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, at which, before Christmas, the Foreign Ministers of the former Warsaw pact countries met those from NATO


countries. I very much welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in inviting President Yeltsin, who, as the House will know, will be coming to London at the end of the month on his way to New York, where the leaders of the permanent members of the Security Council will meet.
We also welcome the fact that the START negotiations and agreements have been confirmed. We welcome the proposal to consolidate the tactical weapons in the 13 republics in Russia and the agreement that that should be achieved in July this year. We have made clear our willingness to help in the handling of nuclear weapons and to give any assistance we can, perhaps by providing extra facilities for their dismantling and disarming in Russia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Kazakhstan on Sunday, from where he will go to Kiev and to Moscow. His visit to Kazakhstan is especially important, because that republic has expressed a different view about what it will do about nuclear weapons.
Such developments are important, but beyond them it is clear that the lessons that we must have learned from Iraq are the difficulties experienced by the International Atomic Energy Agency and those experienced in the enforcement and observation of the non-proliferation treaty. We and our allies in the agency are giving high priority to the work of strengthening the safeguards. With our European Community partners and other like-minded states, we have made and will make specific proposals.
An especially important matter is that of special inspections. Particular importance is to be placed on them, and I am sure that the House will accept that their importance is clear from what happened in Iraq. Anyone who has been watching developments in Iraq will know of the problem of undeclared sites, and will know how few of the sites on which we have found material for weapons of mass destruction were originally declared. The problem of undeclared sites is fundamental, and limits the effectiveness of the present safeguard system.
We believe in the strictest supplier controls, and we are keen to promote them. We welcome the reactivation in 1991 of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the supportive work to draw up a regime to control nuclear dual use items. Of course, the skill in exploiting what were dual use items has been a key in the Iraqi programme. We also intend to introduce the full-scope safeguards for nuclear supply. The lessons of Iraq bring home clearly that area of work, and we will pursue it actively——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: —as we shall also pursue discussions in the United Nations. I referred to the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has called during our presidency of the Security Council to give the opportunity to start to discuss the ways in which the United Nations can be more active in that area.
The House will know of the welcome early visit to this country yesterday by the new Secretary-General of the United Nations and of his meetings with the Prime Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition and with the Foreign Secretary.
We face uncertainty and great danger at present. We need to take every step possible to try to ensure that, both

in the security of the weapons that are in the Soviet Union and in the risks of proliferation, we act as effectively as possible and as closely together as possible with our allies and with all those who share our concerns.

Mr. Douglas: rose——

Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
There can be no guarantee that we shall succeed. I have set out for the House the time frame we face, and I have explained why we believe that, as we face a period of real danger and uncertainty in the nuclear area, we must ensure that our own nuclear defences are sound.
I will set out clearly where we stand. We face the risk of a major strategic arsenal, and we cannot be sure under whose control that arsenal may fall. I have talked about the prospects for the next 10 years and about the number of weapons that would still be left—perhaps for 20 years. To be blunt, we do not have a single idea about who may be in control in 10 years' time. We do not even have a good idea or any confidence about who may be in control 10 weeks from now.
Against that background, it is important for the House to restate its commitment to the need for a strategic deterrent. If we have a strategic deterrent, it must be credible. That means that it must at all times be available and at all times able to preserve its effectiveness. The House knows—there is no point in arguing—that we need four Trident submarines. There is no point in saying that we shall have half a deterrent or three quarters of a deterrent, or that we may say a bit of money if we do not have the last quarter. The professional advice to me, which I accept and which has been accepted by successive Governments, is for our deterrent to be credible and effective. The minimum need is for four Trident submarines.
As has been recognised in the NATO strategic concept and by all our NATO allies, we also need to have a sub-strategic capability to ensure the flexibility of our nuclear response and to ensure its credibility. That is the NATO policy, which has been endorsed only recently—the new policy in the new situation—and that is the policy by which we stand.
In dealing with the existing time scales—the years for which we have to provide—we cannot turn our deterrent on and off like a tap. One either believes in, supports, maintains, equips and trains to ensure the operation of our sub-strategic deterrent for year after year, or one does not invest in it at all. That is our policy.

Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the importance of the availability and credibility of the nuclear deterrent, will he tell the House in what circumstances the Government would use nuclear weapons?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We reserve the option of nuclear use if circumstances are sufficiently dire to warrant it. We will not give the precise details of those circumstances.

Mr. Kaufman: rose——

Mr. King: I will not give way.
What one does not do is stand up and say:
There are no circumstances in which I would order or permit the firing of a nuclear weapon".


The House knows that I am quoting the words of the Leader of the Opposition of 1983. In May 1989, the right hon. Gentleman tried to crawl back from those words and correct himself, but the damage had been done. Lest any hon. Member does not believe that the damage was done, I remind the House that 50 Labour Members did: they signed a letter that appeared in The Guardian dated 5 May 1989. A number of them are sitting on the Back Benches now; I recognise their faces.
The letter said:
We believe it is impossible for any Labour Prime Minister to convince the British public there are any circumstances in which a Labour Prime Minister would press the nuclear button.
They were right. The credibility of the Leader of the Opposition has gone. He said that there were no circumstances in which he would take such action, and both the people and his own party believed him.

Mr. Kaufman: In response to my earlier question, the Secretary of State said that it would be wrong for him to state the circumstances in which the Government might use nuclear weapons. He therefore concurs with the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who said:
It would undermine our strategy of deterrence to spell out in advance the precise way in which nuclear weapons would or might be used in any given circumstances."—[Official Report 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 160.]
Those are extremely sensible words, which the present Prime Minister would do well to learn, given that he asked the Opposition in what circumstances we would use nuclear weapons.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman and I will return to the problems of credibility faced by the Leader of the Opposition on nuclear defence.
We have made our position on nuclear defence absolutely clear. We believe that we need a four-boat Trident fleet, and that our nuclear deterrent should continue in operation. We believe in the need for a sub-strategic capability and have determined to support Nato in its policy on sub-strategic nuclear weapons. Our position is absolutely clear. Only to those unwilling to listen is it not clear.
We think that we have a duty to tell the country what our position is now that the situation has changed—at the end of the cold war and at a time when there is no longer a Soviet Union, but when a huge nuclear arsenal is lying there and could fall into the wrong hands. Is it so outrageous—so embarrassing—to ask the Opposition to tell us, just for a moment, what their policy is?
In their amendment, the Liberal Democrats support the Government's policy on the Trident submarine. They are not so good when it comes to supporting NATO policy on the sub-strategic deterrent, but then they have the rather engaging additional policy of cutting defence expenditure by 50 per cent. over the next 10 years, which means that they could not afford it anyway, so we can see where they stand on that.
Why will the Labour party simply not answer the question? Why does Labour publish policy papers on every subject under the sun but nothing on nuclear deterrence? I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition asking, "How can we avoid the coming election being about personalities and not policies, when you have no policies?" It is significant that I received no reply. I do not often

resort to quoting Mr. Martin Jacques, the former editor of Marxism Today, but he made an interesting comment with which I think many would agree:
The Labour Party has virtually abstained from the post cold war debate on defence. Paralysed by the memory of the 1983 and 1987 elections, its only concern is to reassure. Labour"—
listen to this—
does not want a defence debat: the very mention of defence sends it running for cover.
Nothing that I have seen today contradicts that.
Why is the Labour party paralysed? It is paralysed because it is split from top to bottom. Let us look at today's Order Paper. Nowhere does the official Opposition's amendment make any reference to nuclear defence. But what about the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)? Obviously he is quite confident, because he knows where the bulk of Opposition Members stand—behind him.
Only two years ago, 50 members of the Labour party—among them the hon. Member for Islington, North, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks)—wrote to the Guardian as follows:
We, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, reaffirm our support for Labour Party defence policy as set out in composite 56, carried at last year's Annual Conference of the Labour party, namely 'to unconditionally remove all nuclear weapons and nuclear bases from British soil and waters in the first Parliament of the next Labour Government.'
That is where Opposition Members stand.
What about the Leader of the Opposition? Only three years ago, he wrote to Sanity, the magazine of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, to congratulate the organisation on 30 years of effort to secure a nuclear-free Europe. He stressed the need to make and win the argument for non-nuclear defence.
But the Leader of the Opposition is not the only Labour Member who adopts that position. I need only draw attention to several Front-Bench Members—the hon. Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), for Livingston (Mr. Cook), for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Barking (Ms. Richardson). It has been estimated that 16 of the 22 members of the present shadow Cabinet have an anti-nuclear background.
I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who has to take a lot of flak. It is disgraceful that defence is not represented in the Labour shadow Cabinet. People may have different political views, but it is scandalous that defence is not represented. For the hon. Member for Clackmannan, it must be really galling that the person who beat him for the last place in the shadow Cabinet is the hon. Member for Barking, who, I understand, has shadow Cabinet responsibility for women. It is interesting that the hon. Lady is also a vice-president of CND.
When we raise the question of the CND background of Labour Members, we are told that it is a McCarthyite thing to do. Why should it be regarded as McCarthyite? The hon. Member for Islington, North does not think that it is McCarthyite; he is proud of it. He does not think that membership of CND is a matter for shame. He is proud to say what he believes, and we respect him for standing up for his beliefs.

Mr. Benn: rose——

Mr. King: I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that he too stands up for his opinions.

Mr. Benn: rose——

Mr. King: I apologise for being unable to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have done so once already.
The shameful thing is not that there are Opposition Members who are in CND and are prepared to stand up for what they believe in, but that there are people who pretend that they are no longer members or who have let their membership lapse. They are the people we despise. Anyone who wants to know what the parliamentary Labour party thinks about nuclear defence should note the identity of those who are officers of the newly elected Back-Bench committee. How many people know who is the chairman of the Labour parliamentary defence committee?

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose——

Mr. King: On cue, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) identifies himself.
Who are the hon. Gentleman's noble colleagues as vice-chairmen? They are two well-known multilateralists—the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). If ever one could hear the voice of the Labour party, and if one wanted to know what Labour Back-Bench Members think, they have spelt it out very clearly indeed.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful that, at last, the Secretary of State has given way. It is all very interesting stuff that he is giving. Will he explain to the people of this country why it is necessary to spend £23 billion on purchasing a Trident submarine system that has a fire power equal to 3,800 Hiroshima bombs, when there is no discernible enemy whatsoever, yet the world is split apart by poverty in the south and militarism in the north? Will the right hon. Gentleman address the real needs of the people of this country and the rest of the world, and instead opt for nuclear disarmament and arms conversion rather than the madness of the militarism that he is talking about?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he might not have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and then we would have been denied the real voice of the Labour party. I wonder how to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his sincerity. I happen to believe that, while a massive number of nuclear weapons could be targeted on this country, it would be madness to deny ourselves a minimum nuclear deterrent. However, I suppose that what really must get to the hon Gentleman is that people who he thought supported his point of view but who have now deserted him would actually claim to support my position. I do not believe that they do so, but that is the pretence that they are carrying out at this moment.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I shall not, as I am conscious of the time that we have taken.
As with nuclear, so with conventional. Three successive Labour party conferences have voted for overwhelming reductions in defence expenditure. Whether it is £6 billion a year, other hon. Members who supposedly support our

defence expenditure claim that it is much more. At successive conferences, the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends have been conclusively and substantially beaten by a coalition led by Mr. Bruce Kent and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. They have tried to repudiate that. They have tried to say, "No, that won't happen. We don't have to pay attention to these conference resolutions." Unfortunately, they forgot that repudiation and that resolution when they printed "Looking to the Future".
Last year, we looked forward to huge negotiated cuts in conventional armaments. The effective collapse of the Warsaw pact and such international agreements can make possible reductions in United Kingdom defence spending far beyond anything envisaged at last year's Labour party conference. The hon. Member for Clackmannan went further and said:
The scope for defence cuts will likely be that much greater.
Of course, the secret came out in that leaked memorandum from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), in which he said:
Defence cuts could arguably be the North sea oil of the 1990s.
We got the message. As the House may know, North sea oil has been worth £100 billion. Over the next 10 years, defence expenditure might be £240 billion. We see the hidden agenda. Indeed there are plans, not just on the Labour Back Benches and not just in the reaches of a Labour party conference, but on the Opposition Front Bench and in the inner workings of any ambitions of a future Labour Government for a massive reduction.
I doubt whether we shall get any straight answers. The right hon. Member for Gorton will try to insult and smear any comments that we make. No doubt he will tell us that Labour's policy is already clearly spelt out in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change". It has been reaffirmed in "Looking to the Future", and it has been reaffirmed in "Opportunity Britain". That is the inspired policy that called for the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw pact, and they really subscribe to that. We have made it quite clear that, when we tackle the very real challenges of the Soviet Union, we shall do what needs to be done.
If one challenges the Labour party on defence expenditure, its members say, "We shall do what needs to be done when we get into office." Their slogan is, "Trust us," but to do so would be to give a blank cheque to all those who have been wrong on every count in the past two elections and who would have destroyed our defences. They expect the British people to buy unseen a defence policy of which they know nothing. This is the end of the road for consumers—[Interruption.]
The purpose of today's debate is to ask two direct and straight questions of the right hon. Member for Gorton. As we sit here, we have a nuclear deterrent which is maintained by our service men. What we and the country need to know from the Opposition is whether they now believe in the importance of keeping a strategic nuclear deterrent while other countries have nuclear weapons targeted on us. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the fourth Trident boat is built to guarantee the effective operation of that strategic deterrent? In addition, and separately, do the Opposition support NATO's policy of sub-strategic nuclear weapons based in Europe and kept up to date?
The time for fudging and evasion is over. The time for telling the country where the Opposition stand on nuclear defence is here. The country is entitled to straight answers to those questions. We shall listen with interest to see whether we shall now get them at last.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
calls on Her Majesty's Government, taking into account the perils, problems and uncertainties of the world situation following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and while providing an effective defence for the United Kingdom based on the necessary level of forces provided with the appropriate equipment and weaponry, to formulate a policy based on arms control and reduction negotiations involving the eight nuclear powers, a strengthened and extended nuclear non-proliferation treaty backed by sanctions, a comprehensive test-ban treaty, and a new round of conventional forces negotiations involving the participation of the post-Soviet republics to promote an internationally structured aid programme for the post-Communist countries of central and eastern Europe under the auspices of the G7 countries and to implement a diversification programme within the United Kingdom to assist the defence industries to maintain employment and continue their contribution to the national economy.
Since the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, unprecedented events have taken place in the world. The Soviet Union has been dissolved. Mikhail Gorbachev has resigned as Soviet president. The Commonwealth of Independent States has been born. Three additional nuclear powers have arisen, two of which have larger arsenals than the United Kingdom. A permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has disappeared, with a completely new sovereign state seeking to take its place. A world power balance which lasted for 46 years has ended. A super-power has vanished. Alarming uncertainties have arisen. The danger of nuclear proliferation through the seepage of weapons and of scientists is immensely disturbing.
In those extraordinary circumstances, the Labour party took the view that a narrow debate on nuclear defence did not meet the scale of the problems and perils facing the international community, especially since the House debated nuclear defence only six weeks ago, when the Secretary of State made largely the same speech, with the same poor cracks and the same old quotations that he has given us today.
The Labour party therefore proposed to the Government that the scope of the debate should be widened and that the Foreign Secretary should participate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has appropriately proposed. But the Government refused that proposal because they are wedded to staging a stunt debate to serve their petty party agenda and to distract attention from the "John Major economic slump—made in Downing street" that is driving the Tory party to electoral defeat. The Tory party believed that the Foreign Secretary's obligations to Parliament could be fulfilled by a shoddy little interview in the Sunday Express——

Mr. Sayeed: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way in a little while, but I should like to proceed for a moment. The hon. Gentleman generally seeks to intervene in my speeches and I give way to him from time to time.
The Labour party has therefore tabled an amendment to the Government's motion so as to give the House the opportunity for a sensible and serious debate on the international situation. How wise we were has been proved by the trivial and inadequate speech that we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Defence, a speech which sank under its own lack of weight.
A year ago, the world was dominated by two nuclear super-powers which, after more than 40 years of confrontation, had learnt to work together and had brought a new stability to our planet. Now there is one nuclear super-power, which paradoxically has to cope with profound world instability. The end of the cold war celebrated in Paris in November 1990 brought peace but uncertainty. The end of the USSR has opened a Pandora's box. The conflict in Georgia could be just a foretaste of what might follow.
The west bears its own heavy responsibility for what has taken place. At the G7 summit six months ago, Mikhail Gorbachev was treated like a mendicant. Seeking aid for his country, he was sent home empty-handed and humiliated. The Tory Government in Britain could have altered the balance of three to four in the G7 and could have helped to provide meaningful aid for Gorbachev. In their narrow view of world affairs, they chose not to do so. The August coup followed, and the regime of Mikhail Gorbachev was in ruins. Mikhail Gorbachev was the greatest peacetime leader in international affairs this century. The Prime Minister paid a mawkish tribute to him when he resigned last month but did not lift a finger to help him when he might have been saved.
The question now for the international community is not what can be done to restore the old stability—that is not possible—but how to create a new and lasting stability. With the United States still dominant, but economically weak and ready to accept others sharing its hegemony, there is an unprecedented opportunity for the United Kingdom to give a lead not as a super-power but as a catalyst. Britain can count in the world. There is an agenda waiting to be implemented and Britain can help to formulate that agenda.

Mr. Ian Taylor: It would be unwise to try to rewrite history so quickly. The reality of the G7 meeting was that President Gorbachev could not satisfy the leaders that he could use the aid properly and that it would go to the right quarters. Those assurances were sought but not given, and the lack of those assurances was well understood by Yeltsin and other people in the Soviet Union at that time. The failure of President Gorbachev to apply his reforms ultimately led to the crisis.

Mr. Kaufman: That failure was not recognised in the way that the hon. Gentleman implies by Chancellor Kohl or President Mitterand who, with the Italian Government, wished to provide substantial aid for the Soviet Union at the G7 summit. If the United Kingdom had been with Germany, Italy and France, there would have been a majority at the G7 summit for structured aid to the Soviet Union. That is the scale of the Prime Minister's shortcomings at the G7 summit.
Britain can count in the world. First, we must try to contain the nuclear instability that has arisen and prevent it from leading to a nuclear free-for-all. The START negotiating process between Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, which was continued by President Bush,


resulted in the agreement to reduce American and Soviet strategic nuclear weapons by a third. It is essential that the successor republics to the Soviet Union fulfil that agreement. But there will be no further START process involving the two super-powers. That process is over because there are no longer two super-powers.
All the eight nuclear powers should now become involved in the next phase of the START process. That means negotiations involving the United States, the four former Soviet nuclear powers, France, China and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom should take the lead in urging the convening of such talks, aimed at reducing the stockpiles of all the eight and with the hope of reducing them to low and unthreatening levels. Elimination of all eight stockpiles is the obvious and sensible goal, although when that will be possible it is far too soon to say.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way. I want to proceed a little. When I have dealt with this passage, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Beside that sensible and reasonable objective, this Tory Government look particularly puny and petty as they brandish their nuclear weapons like some macho symbol. They are the Government who have stood in the way of all progress on nuclear disarmament by negotiation the Government who insisted that the Lance missile system should be modernised even when its owner, the United States, accepted that Lance modernisation made no sense. They are the Government who alone opposed negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons when the rest of NATO saw that such negotiations were necessary.
Two years ago, the Secretary of State for Defence sat on the Government Front Bench nodding like an obedient poodle when his Prime Minister said this:
Removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would not obviate the continuing need for short-range missiles. Short-range nuclear weapons must be available to commanders in the field at all stages.
That is what the Prime Minister said; that is what the Secretary of State for Defence expounded. Yet exactly three months ago, the Secretary of State told the House:
we will entirely give up the short-range nuclear capability of the Lance system …the 50th Missile Regiment Royal Artillery will disband. Similarly, we shall give up our nuclear artillery capability." [Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 58.]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Things have changed.

Mr. Kaufman: Of course things have changed. That is the point. The whole point of defence policy is that the Government stick there in the mud not acknowledging that the world situation has changed.

Mr. Robert G.Hughes: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman—not in any circumstances.
The Secretary of State for Defence likes to accuse the Opposition of advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament. Yet six weeks ago the Secretary of State for Defence

announced to the House unilateral British measures to divest this country of nuclear capability, and boasted of it as an achievement.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose——

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose——

Mr. Julian Brazier: rose——

Mr. Churchill: rose——

Mr. Ian Taylor: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: As far as I can gather, Mr. Deputy Speaker, every one of the hon. Gentlemen who seek to intervene on me will not be a Member of the House within six months.

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman knows as little about my constituency as he does about defence policy.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman may not know much about his constituency either. However, since I believe that there is no place like home, I will give way to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).

Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this country would not have a nuclear deterrent today had a Labour Government been elected in either 1983 or 1987?

Mr. Kaufman: According to the Government's own calculations, we do not have a nuclear deterrent. The Government say that the minimum necessary deterrent for this country is four Tridents, and the number of Polaris warheads is far fewer than four Trident warheads, so I am not too sure of the status of the deterrent at the moment.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.

Mr. Kaufman: After first of all advocating Lance missiles and opposing the negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons, the Secretary of State for Defence, after two years, has boasted of getting rid of the Lance missile and of unilaterally getting rid of short-range nuclear weapons. This is the right hon. Gentleman who had the nerve to say in the debate on 22 November:
It is also important that it should be understood that this country adopts a consistent and relevant approach to nuclear matters.—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 544.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that in the House six months ago. He has stood on his head in nuclear matters, turned a public somersault, yet he has the nerve to give the Opposition lectures on consistency.
The Government not only change their mind on what they regard as basic nuclear defence issues—they do not even understand what to do with the nuclear weapons that they possess or seek to retain. They are led by a Prime Minister so completely illiterate on defence matters that on 11 July last year he challenged the Labour party to state in what circumstances it would use nuclear weapons, when the Secretary of State for Defence today rightly refused to do so and when his Prime Minister also refused to do so on the basis that it would undermine the strategy of deterrence.

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: The Government cannot be relied upon to take the lead in international nuclear arms control discussions, but the Labour Government soon to be elected will certainly take that lead.
A great danger arises from the multiplication of ownership of both strategic and short-range nuclear weapons: the danger of proliferation. There is a real peril that weapons will find their way from former Soviet republics to less responsible and more reckless ownership. There is a danger that nuclear scientists, ill paid and uncertain about their future, might be bought up by other countries, taking with them perhaps materials and certainly their know-how. Dick Cheney, United States Defense Secretary, yesterday gave a sombre warning about that possibility.
That is a prospect never before experienced or expected, and we must do all that we can to prevent it from happening. That is why the nuclear non-proliferation treaty must be extended. All the successor Soviet republics, especially those already in possession of nuclear weapons, must be persuaded to sign the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty must be strengthened, with more intrusive inspection. Any country refusing to sign it must not be permitted to buy any nuclear materials even for professedly peaceful purposes.

Mr. Salmond: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The whole process should be backed up by sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. It is highly encouraging that China has decided to adhere to the non-proliferation treaty. That gives all five permanent members of the Security Council a common interest in ensuring that the non-proliferation treaty really works.

Mr. Salmond: Would this proposal not carry more weight and have more moral force in terms of reducing escalation and stopping proliferation if the Conservative and Labour parties were not both engaged in a unilateral escalation—by a factor of eight—of the British strategic strike force? What possible contribution can that make to non-escalation and non-proliferation?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is unacquainted with what we have said about this matter, which is that we would not agree to more warheads on Trident than there are on Polaris. That is the position of the Labour party.

Mr. Alan Clark: It is a new one.

Mr. Kaufman: The Minister of State is wrong. It is not new—we announced it two and a half years ago, so the hon. Gentleman may as well catch up now.

Mr. Alan Clark: It is very reassuring to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the fourth Trident boat in answer to my hon. Friend the member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Will he, however, clarify the uncertainties that his hon. Friends have introduced on the subject by confirming that the Labour party intends to order a fourth boat but will ensure that it carries only the same number of warheads as the Polaris boats?

Mr. Kaufman: We shall have to wait for the Government to order the fourth boat first. The Government put it out to tender six months ago, and so far they have not placed an order. Indeed, the press expected

the Secretary of State to surprise us all by announcing that order today. The Government cannot make up their mind about an order, yet they ask us to say whether we would cancel it.

Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrown and Furness): rose——

Mr. Kaufman: No, no, the Trident programme does not belong to the hon. Gentleman. He has only a few weeks left in the House, during which he would do well to press the Government to provide work for the Barrow shipyard beyond any Trident programme. I have spoken to the work force there and I know that they are desperately worried about the work programme for Barrow even beyond a fourth Trident submarine.

Mr. Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman:: No.

Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I am right in thinking that it is a convention of this House that, when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member, he must then give way to him, should the latter wish to intervene.

Mr. Kaufman: As I said, the hon. Gentleman has an obligation to his constituents beyond seeking a formula that can get him through to the next general election.

Mr. Franks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you give us a ruling on what I said?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Franks: It is the one that I raised a few moments ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point of order, but I was hoping that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would respond to it.

Mr. Kaufman: I do not respond to points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will respond to your response to a point of order. I therefore give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Franks: I would usually say that I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he gave way with such a lack of dignity that he does not deserve my gratitude.
The question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman—he can save his hyperbole for the general election—is one that I put twice in writing to the Leader of the Opposition, who refused to answer it. I put the question on behalf of constituents from the shipyard who came to see me at my advice bureau, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to it now. Will the Labour party build the fourth Trident submarine—yes or no?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman had better ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to build the fourth Trident. He put it out to tender in July and he has not yet placed the order. There are arguments within the defence community about it.
I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman what his right hon. Friend cannot tell him: with or without a fourth Trident, a Labour Government will provide the Barrow shipyard with work equivalent to the fourth Trident. We said that too, in May 1989, when we published our policy document on this matter. It is not new, and if the Minister


of State for Defence Procurement had paid serious attention to these matters he would have known this nearly three years ago.

Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman has given a categorical pledge to the work force at Barrow, who are deeply involved in defence expenditure and whose jobs depend on it. Will he give the same assurance to the workers at Yarrow and at Swan Hunter?

Mr. Kaufman: We gave our assurance to the workers at Barrow in May 1989. If the right hon. Gentleman had studied our policy document he would have known that long ago. It is about time he announced whether he will place the order for the fourth Trident before the general election.
On 22 November, the Secretary of State for Defence was not very clear about this. He said:
subject to a successful analysis, we shall proceed with the project".—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 542.]
That is not unequivocal. Today the right hon. Gentleman could have told the House that he was placing the order for the fourth Trident. Perhaps he will now do so in an intervention.

Mr. King: As the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, the project went out to tender in July. The tenders have been received and are now being evaluated, and we intend to proceed. We are talking about substantial sums of public money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) has said, we have already given the authority to proceed with long-lead items. We are already building the fourth Trident submarine at this moment, and authority has been granted in line with previous practice. We are dealing with a monopoly supplier—a nuclear submarine cannot go out to competitive tender and we have a heavy responsibility to ensure that the contract is fully evaluated, but we intend to proceed. Will the right hon. Gentleman proceed?

Mr. Kaufman: And that from a right hon. Member whose hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) asked me for a yes or no answer.
We have heard much recently from this Tory Government about the need to prevent nuclear proliferation and to stop Saddam Hussein obtaining nuclear weapons for Iraq. The Foreign Secretary told the Sunday Express this week in a statement that revealed the Tory old Adam beneath that bland image that, with a Labour Government, Saddam
might think it might be worth taking a risk or two".
We will not accept that kind of slander from a Government and Foreign Secretary who connived at the export from Britain of nuclear weapons materials to Iraq in violation of their own arms embargo. We will not take this sort of slander from a Government and Foreign Secretary who allowed Iraq to obtain from this country components for a supergun that could have fired nuclear warheads. We will not take it from a Government and Foreign Secretary who, in violation of their own arms embargo, permitted the export to Iraq—right up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait—of the following products, as listed in the Department of Trade and Industry memorandum to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
I quote only part of the list of what the Government have admitted they allowed to be exported to Iraq in violation of their own arms embargo:
38 mm signal cartridges; air defence simulator; armoured vehicle spares; armoured vehicle; artillery fire control; artillery body arm; explosives; fast assault craft; guns sound ranging equipment; helicopter engines; hostile fire indicator; laser range finder; long range surveillance; mortar locating radar; naval spares; night vision equipment; night vision goggles; night vision training; pistols; rifles; shotguns; portable explosive detectors; radar systems and equipment; secure phone spares; secure telephone systems; short-burst crypto; small aircraft; speech encryption units; speech scramblers; tank helmets; under water training aids".
How many of those were used against British forces when we were fighting in the Gulf a year ago? Yet these are the people who have the nerve to say that a Labour Government might encourage Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we sat here listening to the Secretary of State for Defence trying to preach to the Labour party? Now that my right hon. Friend has read out that list, it is clear that the Government cannot be trusted.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend puts the point with his usual moderation.
The Government, against the advice explicitly given by the Opposition Front Bench, went on granting increasing trade credits to Iraq right up to the invasion of Kuwait. So I say to the Government, "Spare us your sanctimony and your hypocrisy—it is too much to stomach."

Mr. Chris Mullin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on placing that list on the record. While we are on the subject of selling arms to dictators, is my right hon. Friend aware that last September the Secretary of State was touring Indonesia, one of the bloodiest regimes in the world? On 19 September he had a meeting with the Indonesian dictator, General Suharto; the subject under discussion was the sale of more arms to Indonesia. The massacre in East Timor—only a small part of what has gone on in Indonesia—occurred two months later. What right have those people to lecture us?

Mr. Kaufman: When it comes to these matters, there is about the Government a duplicity which makes one wonder how they have the nerve to bring such a motion before the House. They lack the credentials to take an initiative which will strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. The Labour Government, soon to be elected, certainly will take that lead.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend. After that I must proceed, because I do not want to take as much time as the Secretary of State took.

Mr. Winnick: 1, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on placing on record what the Tory Government have done in regard to exports to Iraq. When I had an Adjournment debate in April 1990, some months before the criminal invasion of Kuwait, I argued that trade credits should be discontinued. The Minister who replied—the present Secretary of State for Health—argued that, if Britain did not export to Iraq. other countries would. So the Tory Government knew full well what was happening.

Mr. Kaufman: I know that my hon. Friend argued that trade credits should be stopped. We did so too from the


Front Bench, in particular after the supergun was found and after the case of the nuclear triggers. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us that we were going over the top in making that request.

Mr. Paul Flynn: rose——

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for not giving way; I have said that I do not want to take any more interventions because of the lack of time.
There is another way in which nuclear proliferation can be prevented. Any country which becomes able to manufacture nuclear weapons needs to test them. so a comprehensive text ban treaty would be of great value. Any disadvantage to powers already in possession of nuclear capability would he more than counter-balanced by the advantage derived from preventing new nuclear powers being created. Such a treaty would need to be backed by international sanctions through the Security Council.
Last September, Mikhail Gorbachev imposed a moratorium on Soviet nuclear testing. That should be the first step to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, but the Government show no interest whatever in such a move. The Labour Government, soon to be elected, will take the lead on that as well.
While the prevention of nuclear proliferation is the greatest prize, further moves in conventional arms control and negotiated disarmament are essential. Some countries are already making cuts. The Germans have just announced cuts. President Bush is expected to propose cuts and a peace dividend for the United States in his state of the union message later this month. While other Governments, even including the Tory Government, are committed to making cuts, negotiation is the best way of achieving cuts because negotiated agreements open the way to verification.
If the former Soviet republics become involved in new talks on conventional forces in Europe, it may help to allay their mistrust of each other if they observe each other to be part of an arms cutting process. The Tory Government have shown no interest in a renewed CFE process. The Labour Government, soon to be elected, will seek to give a lead in bringing about such negotiations.
The former communist countries, ex-Soviet republics and others, continue to face grave economic problems which threaten their stability and in consequence threaten world stability as well. We believe that the G7 countries, in co-operation with the European Community, should take the initiative in working out a structure plan to assist those countries to rebuild their economies. Such a plan would include financial aid and credits, technological help and assistance in making convertible currencies possible.
The Labour party called for such a new Marshall plan two years ago. We have since been joined in advocating such a scheme, with that name, by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—only last month—and by Lech Walesa, the President of Poland. The moment we proposed it, that wiseacre the Foreign Secretary scoffed at it. I understand that last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer included the cost of a new Marshall plan in the mythical total from which he derived his estimate of taxation under a Labour Government.
Until discussions take place about such a plan, it is not known how many countries would participate, how much

finance would be involved and what the time scale would be. Therefore, it is impossible for any rational person to cost it. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit to do so lets us into the secret of how he arrives at his own economic forecasts, which even he has now admitted are wrong.
If our proposal for such a plan had been followed up when we first made it two years ago, real progress could have been made and it would have been possible to avoid the demeaning scenes of Russians scrambling for food belatedly supplied halfway through the winter. The Tory Government show no interest whatever in such long-term planning so the Labour Government, soon to be elected, will give a lead.
The impact of the end of the cold war is being felt not only among our former adversaries; it is hitting hard at home as well. Tory defence cuts, together with technological change in the defence industries, have cost an estimated 74,000 jobs in Britain in the past 18 months. The Defence Manufacturers Association has warned that, as the decade proceeds, 123,000 more defence jobs will he lost. The country cannot afford that additional unemployment, that casting away of scarce and expensive skills, that destruction of a whole sector of our economy. The Tory Government have shown little or no interest in that grave problem. When the defence manufacturers recently sought a meeting with the Prime Minister, they got no response.
It is known that the dialogue between defence manufacturers and the Ministry of Defence is inadequate. How can it be otherwise when the latest White Paper on defence states:
It is not for the Government to seek to influence such decisions.
Those who work in our defence industries have the right to hope for a more reliable future from a country that relies on their contribution to its defence. The Tory Government show no interest in that problem. The Labour Government, soon to be elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Yes, the Labour party that will be elected as soon as the Conservatives have the nerve to call a general election—why do they run away from it if they are so confident?
We shall set up a defence diversification agency that will work with industry and unions to provide information, advice and retraining to ensure that the country is not deprived of vital skills and talents. We have good reason to know that the leaders of the defence industry will be ready to co-operate with us and with the work of such an agency.
While the Labour party takes a positive approach to the problems that beset us, the Tory Government are bereft of ideas. Nostalgic for the cold war, they can only mouth the slogans of that war, as the Government motion and the Secretary of State and his colleagues do. I resent their untruthful re-writing of the Labour party's commitment to the nation's defence.
The Labour Governments of 1945–1951, 1964–1970 and 1974–1979 were as diligent in providing for this nation's defence as any other Government that there have ever been. I know how the Secretary of State may respond: he may say that the 1945 Government were different from the Labour party facing him today. Of course, he is right—the 1945 Labour Government were the one that the Tories said in the 1945 election campaign would bring the Gestapo to Britain.
Whenever the Tories know that they are facing electoral defeat, they dive head first into the political sewer—[Interruption.] I think that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), is having a seizure. The 1945 Gestapo scare has its equivalent in the 1972 scare that Saddam Hussein might take a risk or two. The Tory bogeymen may change, but the Tory lack of principle remains the same.
The Opposition resent even more the Conservative's arrogant assumption that Britain's defence is the property of the Tory party. Labour voters are among the work forces that produce the planes and ships of our forces. Labour voters were among the men who last week were used by the Prime Minister as a background for a photo opportunity at a tank factory. Labour voters were among the men and women who risked their lives, and the men who sacrificed their lives, in the Falklands and the Gulf. Labour voters are among the men who patrol the dangerous—[Interruption.] Labour voters opposed David Irving and all that he stood for—they opposed the Nazism of David Irving.
Labour voters are among the men who patrol the dangerous places in Northern Ireland—risking and sacrificing their lives. When an IRA sniper aims his rifle at a British soldier, he does not pause to check which way he votes in a general election. It is about time that the Tory party, which stages phoney defence debate after phoney defence debate, accepted that patriotism knows no party. We are sick and tired of the Tories claiming that only their supporters are patriots—we are not having that, and they had better stop making the claim.
The Falklands and Gulf wars were not won on the playing fields of Eton, but in the comprehensive schools and colleges of Manchester, Strathclyde, Gwent, Clwyd, Lincolnshire and Somerset. The nation's defence is the concern of all hon. Members and all our people. In a very few months, a Labour Government will be entrusted with the defence of our country and, as it always has in the past, the Labour party will keep faith.

Mr. Michael Mates: I suppose it was inevitable that such a debate would involve an element of overheating. I do not want to blame any hon. Member for using a touch of hyperbole. I do not think that anyone doubts that most people who vote Labour are patriots, and that is not the point that Conservative Members seek to make. We are talking not about the millions of people who support the Labour party for whatever reason and who are nevertheless thoroughly good patriotic British citizens, but about Members of Parliament who are sent here under false pretences and who, using the public platform that this place provides them, do nothing but talk down our defence and all the efforts made by those very people to whom the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred, thus damaging and undermining the credibility of our defence. To the right hon. Member for Gorton, I say:
By their fruits ye shall know them",
not by their fine words.
Now that we face an election, the Opposition offer to bail out some defence companies. "We shall take £8 billion

off the defence budget," they say, "but no one will get hurt." Their constituents will be guaranteed to keep their defence jobs or be given different jobs as swords are turned into ploughshares. The Opposition's schemes are unquantified—how much money will they need? We do not know, as they do not tell us.
The serious point underlying my comments has been made at length and stands repeating. With the world changing at the speed that it is, we must keep reassessing commitments and what we are planning to do to discover whether our plans still make sense. I believe that nuclear deterrence makes more sense today than ever before.
Some hon. Members have remained consistent and signed the 50-signature Labour motion, stating their utter abhorrence of and opposition to all forms of nuclear weapons. At least their position is consistent. I think that it is wrong, but I understand it and can respect it. It is those who have changed—wriggled and squirmed from positionto position with nothing more than political opportunism in mind—whom one cannot respect.
During the past four years, I have usually followed the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who seems deeply uncomfortable as he delivers speeches that make Labour Back-Bench Members almost retch because they know that the words that he issues on behalf of the Labour party are not those of the true Labour party. One has a certain sympathy for him.
My right hon.Friend the Secretary of State concentrated most of his fire on the Labour party as the only credible alternative Government, but the Liberal Democrats are not very different. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) does not have to worry about those behind him, because there are none. He stands alone in debate after debate constantly trying to correct some of the worst excesses uttered by and voted on by his party's members at conferences. We need to turn an electoral spotlight on the Liberal Democrats' defence policy.
I think that the most significant meeting that is likely to take place this year is the one to take place shortly between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mr. Yeltsin and President Bush. It will be the first occasion on which a leader of most of the former Soviet Union, having control of a large part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, will be attending a meeting at which it will be in his own vital interest to ensure that nuclear weapons are kept under control. That has not been the case before. It is arguable that, at the start of the Gorbachev negotiations, he saw the way that things might go and wanted to devise a way of controlling his own nuclear arsenal—but I am not sure that history will bear that out.
As for today, it must be so important for President Yeltsin to make certain that he can reach with the west some accommodation in respect of sensible nuclear reduction, arms control and inspection and verification—so that, with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States and other republics, he does not face a great danger to himself, and to his own security and stability, in having an uncontrolled nuclear arsenal loose on what was formerly Soviet territory. For the right hon. Member for Gorton to scorn that meeting as an electoral photo opportunity is to demean the whole cause for which those three men will be trying to work together.
The problem with debates about nuclear deterrence over the past 40 years is that no one could say who was


right and who was wrong. One body of opinion held that deterrents kept the peace, while another argued that the possession of nuclear weapons posed the threat of war. No one knew the answers, because it was only in a negative sense that one could prove that deterrence was working.
When we reached the end of the cold war—which began with our determination not to let the old Soviet Union get away with introducing a new generation of intermediate nuclear forces into the European theatre and our deployment of cruise, which was a brave political decision made in the teeth of opposition by all the Opposition parties—we were given the answer on whether or not deterrence worked. We were told so not by anyone here but by President Gorbachev himself.
When the INF treaty was concluded and we were able to wipe from the slate a whole range of nuclear weapons for the first time in history, someone asked Gorbachev whether he would have given up his intermediate weapons if we had not deployed cruise. He answered, "Of course not. You do not give up something for nothing." We forced him to do that, and events forced him to do so as well. It was acknowledged that, by negotiating from a position of strength on both sides, one can lower the threshold and reduce strategic, intermediate and sub-strategic weapons. We know that, without them, one has no cards to lay on the table and one can do nothing.

Mr. Corbyn: Can the hon. Gentleman therefore explain why he and his party support the adoption of the Trident submarine system—which represents a massive proliferation of nuclear firepower—in a world that he claims is becoming more peaceful?

Mr. Mates: I do not agree that that does represent proliferation, or that it is a new deployment. It is clear that Polaris is out of date and that, in four or five years' time, it will not be an effective deterrent. Does one replace it or abandon it? The hon. Gentleman and I take a comprehensively different view of those two ends of the argument, but Trident is the minimum deterrent that we can maintain in the present circumstances, and will see strategic deterrence through into the next century. There is no other way that that can be done.
The fact that Trident has a longer range and the capability for carrying more warheads is a function of the development of nuclear technology over the years. One cannot disinvent that technology or build a more primitive weapon—except at prohibitive cost, and there would be no effectiveness at the end of it. Although Trident may be slightly more than is needed or desirable, one must have it if one is to proceed with a deterrent at all. That argument has been rehearsed many times, so I will not repeat it.
Far from knocking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for preparing for what could be one of the most important and significant meetings ever on the future of nuclear deterrence, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House ought to wish him well and hope that he can persuade Mr. Yeltsin—as I am sure President Bush will try to do—that it is in everyone's interest to get negotiations going again. First, we must introduce a regime of inspection and verification, which will do much to allay the anxieties that Mr. Yeltsin and his helpers must themselves feel about the nuclear weapons that exist in the old republics.

Mr. Benn: rose——

Mr. Mates: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Benn: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished.

Mr. Mates: Hope springs eternal! I can tell the right hon. gentleman without fear of contradiction that I will be briefer than he will.
As we near the time of a general election, it is as important as it was in the past two or three general elections to make the British public aware of what it is that the various competing parties are offering in defence terms. That is an easy job for us, because we have done so successfully for the past 14 years, with public confidence. We have had difficulties, and are having some now over defence reductions that had to be made as a consequence of changes in the world scene over the past year or two.
There has been a debate in the Conservative party as to whether those reductions have at the margin gone a little too far, or not far enough, and whether the balance is right. Those are perfectly legitimate concerns, and my party continues to debate them openly—but no one doubts our intentions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence covered comprehensively what Labour is offering, so I will consider instead what is on offer from the Liberal Democrats. While the spotlight has been on the row between the haves and the have-nots in Labour—between those who want to destroy our nuclear defences and those who want to retain some credibility for electoral purposes—the Liberal Democrats have sat in the shadows saying very little, and hoping that what little they do say is not getting too wide an audience.
Some of the remarks made by the Liberal Democrats' leader do not stand up to too much examination. He has the useful asset of being a former Royal Marines captain, and so is thought to be sound on defence. Again,
By their fruits ye shall know them.
I believe that I can say without any fear of going too far that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) once showed that he sympathised with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, having shared a platform with the Leader of the Opposition at a great rally against the deployment of cruise and Trident.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman reading from a pamphlet?

Mr. Mates: No, I just have a note of some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil that I will share with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East.
I suppose that one cannot blame the leader of the Liberal Democrats for appearing in the communist Morning Star alongside the then chairman of CND—the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock)—and Labour's parliamentary CND chairman, when he was reported as describing the Trident programme as
a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible.
That did not go down very well with the voters in 1983, so like Labour—but more slowly and less perceptibly—the Liberals decided to shift their position. A brave speech was made by the party's leader at that time, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who said that his party must not keep its unilateralist policies


because I believe they are politically disastrous. The electorate has demonstrated time and time again that, rightly, in my view, they will not vote for any party which dodges its basic responsibility for the security of our country.
However, as that same news item reported, the right hon. Gentleman's standing ovation could not match the ecstatic applause for the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who was the architect of the policy demanding the abandonment of cruise missiles, and was tipped then eventually to replace the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
If that is the way in which the good captain of the Royal Marines parades his service, patriotism and commitment to defence, it is a very strange way of doing so. What the Liberal Democrats have in their locker is even better than what Labour has to offer. Labour will slash £8 billion from our defence budget, although it has not told us how that will be done or who will be affected, or what time scale will be involved. The Liberal Democrats have gone one better:they intend to halve the defence budget and, moreover, they have given us a time scale. They say that they will have completed the process by the end of the century.
That means a cut of about £12 billion over eight years—a cut of £1·5 billion each year—and it provides us with a yardstick of sorts. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East intends to speak in the debate, and will tell us what the effect of such a cut would be; or perhaps he will hide behind the saving remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who observed that it was not a policy but an aspiration.
If the people are to decide to whose care to entrust our defence over the next four or five years, they—and we—need not aspirations, but a policy. If the policy of the Liberal Democrats is indeed to halve the defence budget in eight short years, I need not tell the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East that the effect on our forces—on manpower, equipment, morale and, perhaps above all, defence industries throughout the country—would be catastrophic.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman knows a way in which he could achieve his aim without causing such a result, I suggest that he write it down on one side of a sheet of foolscap and send it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe, however, that if a sound method of achieving that aim existed my right hon. Friend would have discovered it: he is, after all, under some pressure himself to cut the defence budget in the present difficult times.
Of course, our friends the Liberal Democrats constantly seek to be all things to all men. As recently as the occasion of the last Scottish by-election, they were saying that we had gone too far with our defence cuts. We have announced a cut from 160,000 men to about 116,000; the so-called Liberal Democrats' White Paper mentions a figure of 73,000. That, of course, does not include the Gordon Highlanders, because there was a by-election in their recruiting area.
How cynical can people get when we are trying to hold a reasoned debate? Ultimately, a judgment will be made about the policy around which the right hon. Member for Gorton skirted for 40 tedious minutes as he tried to challenge us about what we would do. By their fruits ye

shall know them. We have looked after the country's defence faithfully and well for the past 12 years and, God willing, we shall do so for the next 12 years.

Sir Patrick Duffy: Few could have foreseen that the end of the cold war would bring the world not more security, but a great deal less. As the Secretary of State told us at the beginning of the debate, the end of the Soviet Union threatens to bring anarchy and an outburst of tribal passions—"a Yugoslavia with nukes", as James Baker has put it. Given that fearful prospect, we must ber thankful for the loose association of 11 former Soviet republics that is now called the Commonwealth of Independent States, or CIS; but the years of Soviet power have so inoculated each republic against centralisation that co-ordination will be a struggle.
Earlier this month, at Minsk, the 11 leaders failed, for example, to agree to keep a joint conventional military force. Tricky decisions lie ahead about how to split up the 4 million-strong ex-Soviet force. Last week's Ukraine claims to the full Black sea fleet is a case in point.
Last Friday, here in London—as the Secretary of State is only too well aware—Mr. Richard Cheney, the right hon. Gentleman's opposite number in Washington, said that the United States was watching the dispute over the Black sea fleet very carefully, because
a dispute over military assets could slop over and affect the nuclear industry".
The west is now resigned to having to deal with four nuclear powers on the territory of the old Soviet Union. It is clearly not possible to ask Mr. Yeltsin, the President of the Russian Federation, to destroy his strategic arsenal when he has nuclear-armed China as a neighbour. The other three nuclear republics—the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan—are thought unlikely to disarm completely, because they are fearful of giving Mr. Yeltsin a monopoly of nuclear weapons.
The greatest confusion, however, surrounds the fate of central Asia, which contains five Muslim republics, of 60 million people. If they opt to break for Moscow's control, that will clearly have a profound effect on the middle east and China. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan are all interested in stamping their mark on them. Saudi Arabia has already established financial links with Kazakhstan, and there are disturbing reports of secret visits by delegations from Libya, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia to Dushanbe, the capital of Muslim Tajikistgan. All are reported to be interested in buying enriched uranium from the republic, which has deposits of the ore and houses the former Soviet Union's first uraniun enriching plant. Does that portend an Islam bomb?
The major concern of the West is to ensure that nuclear weapons are kept safe from the turmoil that threatens to engulf the area of the old Soviet Union. As we have already been reminded in today's debate, only last month General Vladimir Lobov, then chief of general staff, pronounced during a visit to London that—as he had personally assured me in Madrid in October—he was entirely satisfied with the nuclear safeguards covering the arsenal of 27,000 warheads. Within 24 hours of his return home, however, General Lobov was sacked and replaced by General Viktor Samsonov. That added to uncertainty in the west about who was really in command of the nuclear weapons.
How can there be effective central control of the systems when there is no longer a real political centre? That is not to say that Armageddon can be instigated by a group bent on mischief simply through the pressing of a button; as the Secretary of State knows, it does not work like that. The chain of control is too complex and too sophisticated. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated safety measures are found only on the more modern weapons. More disturbing are recent reports that Russia and the republics will run out of money: the Secretary of State has already given us an instance of that. Soon, there may no longer be any cash to pay the armed forces, or to buy food imports.
The military-industrial complex, which may account for as much as half of the Soviet economy, is already starting to fall apart. Before Christmas, the head of Soviet military counter-intelligence, Major-General Yuri Bulygin, warned that safety standards were falling because of instability in the demoralised armed forces. While long-range strategic weapons may be secure, that is not necessarily true of shorter-range tactical weapons. Many of those are old, and may not even be as well safeguarded as the more potent strategic weapons.
The repatriation of nuclear systems—strategic and tactical—to, say, the territory of the Russian federation could be both difficult and dangerous. There would be a problem of storage, as existing facilities are overloaded. Even destroying them on the spot would be very expensive, and would probably require western help.
The best technical measures to control nuclear weapons cannot withstand the complete breakdown of social organisation. Instead of just having many hungry people, the Commonwealth of Independent States may soon have many well-armed but hungry people who may be tempted to sell their weapons and skills. As a result of such a black-market brain drain, a growing number of countries in the third world may acquire weapons of mass destruction. Thus, at a stroke, the collapse of the Soviet Union will have unravelled all the work of the non-proliferation treaties. Critically, at a time when smaller nations, from Iraq to Pakistan, have circumvented the cartel to the very edge of nuclear capability, a host of potential nuclear mini-powers has appeared on our horizon.
What can be done? First, as with the Germans, there must be more active involvement in eastern Europe and the CIS—prodding here and hand-holding there. Secondly, in exchange for western aid, technology, and expertise, there must be a binding agreement on the political control of nuclear weapons within the CIS. Thirdly, safety procedures, including physical measures as well as codes, must be strengthened in order to reduce the risk of unauthorised use of nuclear weapons.
Fourthly, last month's NATO meeting in Brussels with representatives from several of the new republics must be repeated on a regular basis, and the emphasis on deterrence must be replaced increasingly by concern with disarmament, restructuring and co-operative arms control measures.
Fifthly, signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty have a chance to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency when its board of governors meets in February. Sixthly, there are two favourable domestic factors—the only constant factors—in the chaos that was

once the Soviet Union. The first is the red army and the second is the character of the peoples that made up the Soviet Union, especially the Russians.
The military was always the least corrupt and morally compromised of the pillars of the Soviet state, and the officer corps remains, even now, fundamentally honest and less cynical than any other section of society. Therefore, I believe that we should intensify the dialogue that began between the Soviet army and its western counterparts during the Gorbachev years.
Incidentally, that was preceded by a dialogue involving NATO parliamentarians—notably, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Mr. George), the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues on the Select Committee. They all entered into dialogue even before our professional colleagues did so in Brussels and at other command centres. They had discussions with senior political and military Russians and with senior political and military figures throughout the Warsaw pact while it was still in being. Such dialogue forged real friendships at a high level, and I believe that they are much valued throughout what used to be the Warsaw pact as well as the Soviet Union. I hope that such friendships will be maintained and, where possible, intensified.
The other factor is the character of the peoples of the old Soviet Union. Their capacity for endurance is remarkable. Without it, they would not have survived the war years—they could not have overcome the German onslaught—much less the trials of the past 70 years. Now, their ability to endure what western Europeans might find unendurable may be the salvation of Russia.
It is likely that the west will have to rethink its entire defence strategy, giving increased emphasis to anti-missile defence. In the new environment, can we be sure that the Trident system—however essential its deterrent value—will continue to head our strategic priorities?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy). As he pointed out, in company with other right hon. and hon. Members, he has played anotable part in forging relationships with the eastern European countries—former members of the Warsaw pact—and leading members of the now disbanded Soviet Union. Such work, although at a low level compared with that done by Ministers, has played a useful part in building confidence between what were, at that time, two opposing blocks. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a continuing role at that level, and I believe that his suggestions should be given close and detailed attention by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
During his speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and hinted at other means of destruction which are also a cause of growing concern. He also said—I support his view—that for the foreseeable future we shall need a strong nuclear defence. It is a necessary and vital part of our defence structure and the defence structure of the western world.
I understand that that is also the official policy of those on the Opposition Front Bench. To be fair, their


conversion lacks the fervour normally associated with converts, possibly because their conviction is muted by the memory of many of them—both on the Front and Back Benches—that they have devoted the best part of their adult lives to unilateral disarmament. That is why we continue what some people say is a wrangle.
It is important that, in debates such as this, we should test the sincerity and devotion of what is often professed from the Opposition Front Bench, especially by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), that there is no difference between the two Front Benches. There is a difference and, although we regret it, we believe that it will continue. Today, as often before, little has been said from the Back Benches that restores my conviction that, if there were to be a Labour Government, they would have the guts to go ahead with the policies that we know are right for this nation.
My purpose is not to dwell on the integrity of the Opposition and their defence policy. I have a high regard for the talents of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). He speaks with knowledge and a great conviction as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly. However, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) that there is a Janus aspect—it is appropriate that the debate should take place in January—to the Liberal Democrat approach. They look both ways.
It is not credible to say that they are committed to a fourth Trident boat and that they support that aspect of nuclear policy, while muttering loudly and clearly to the wider public that their aspiration is to cut defence by 50 per cent. in the next decade. When politicians talk that way, some people believe them. I hope that, in due course, the views of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East will prevail, because it is not in the interests of our nation or Parliament that we should be divided on this point.
My purpose is to look at the international aspects of nuclear weapons and follow some of the points made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew our attention to those nations that are seeking to develop nuclear weapons, he underlined the fact that the passing of the cold war still leaves us facing a greater variety of potential threats to our security and that, in some ways, that creates a far more volatile and dangerous situation than we have faced before.
Whether or not it is more dangerous and volatile—I believe that it is—I am sure of one thing: that we got into the habit of knowing how to second-guess the Russians. We began to learn how to out-bluff them and how to face them down. We began to develop confidence and a unity developed between the United States and the western European nations. That was one of the great achievements of statesmanship in the post-war world.
What worries me is that, in facing a new situation in which we are not sure where the next threat is coming from, we shall not have the mechanism in place to deal effectively with the problems. Therefore, the ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein, the unpredictability and exotic behaviour of some of today's leaders and the instability of

so many countries pose new and more threats of a different type from those which we have faced and with which we became used to dealing after world war two.
The most dangerous aspect is that the ambitions of so many of today's world leaders are fuelled by nationalist aspirations and sometimes by religious fervour, which supports the belief that the possession of chemical and even biological weapons will further their economic and political aims. That is sheer lunacy.
Nearly half a century has elapsed since the end of world war two, when it seemed to Britain that our very existence depended on developing weapons which would ensure our survival. Who would doubt that our judgment on that occasion was right? We had the knowledge, which was confirmed after the war, that our main enemy—Nazi Germany—was developing nuclear weapons and was soon to be followed by the Soviet Union, which did the same.

Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir G. Johnson Smith: I shall give way, but not for long. I do not want to disrupt the debate, because I want to allow other hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Flynn: How will the hon. Gentleman dissuade the countries from what he rightly describes as their lunacy by adopting the posture urged on us today, which would involve our not reducing arms but increasing them?

Sir G. Johnson Smith: I had set up my argument to deal with that very problem, and I respect the hon. Gentleman for asking the question. I see a reduction in our nuclear weapons and in our reliance on them, which is why, for example, the Government have announced that we shall withdraw the use of nuclear artillery, and that no surface ships will be equipped with nuclear weapons. There is in train a massive reduction in nuclear weapons, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred and in which we are already playing our part.
However, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, we face the daunting task of persuading the nations that were not threatened as we were that it is not in their interests or in those of world peace to initiate nuclear programmes just as—as I said earlier—the existing nuclear powers have begun to contain and reduce their nuclear arsenals, which will lead to their virtual elimination together with that of other weapons of mass destruction such as chemical weapons. I refer, of course, to the agreement on chemical weapons made between the United States and the Soviet Union.
It is regrettable that, at this time in the evolution of the relationship between the democracies and the former communist powers of eastern Europe, the situation has been complicated by the emerging capability of some countries outside Europe to develop or to buy at cut prices delivery systems using other forms of mass destruction. The nations which are behind their regional rivals in developing a nuclear capability can—as we know—acquire a chemical capability as an equivalent deterrent which is cheaper and easier to make.
That is why I believe that chemical weapons delivered by ballistic missiles are such an attractive proposition to nations in the middle east which are concerned about Israel's nuclear ability. Therefore, the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and missile technologies is closely


linked. That poses a major challenge to our efforts to stop these forms of proliferation. If we are to succeed, we must deal with all the problems simultaneously.
The verification and other control procedures are inadequate. We know that, but we also know that they pose enormous technical and financial problems. No one should underestimate them, but we must—and I believe we can—do better. The common denominator of all the systems is the delivery system—the ballistic missile.
The belated discovery of the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme has shown that the International Atomic Energy Agency non-proliferation safeguards are not up to the job. Therefore, I hope that, when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is reviewed—as it shortly will be—the Government will urge that ballistic missiles be brought under the control of the NPT formula and that they will back the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with increased powers of surveillance.
As we know, export controls and diplomacy can delay missile projects, but they need to be reinforced. That is why some nations drop a few not very well disguised hints that they are within reach of developing a nuclear capability, but never openly admit that they have already become nuclear powers. They know that, if they were to do so, they would be in breach of the NPT and would be subject to enormous financial and economic pressures. Many hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Attercliffe—referred to that issue. Any decisions taken on this front to tighten the nuclear non-proliferation treaty must have the force of economic trade pressures behind them.
The trouble with schemes designed to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is that it is difficult for the haves to persuade the have-nots. It is fundamental to the success of arms control that the haves are seen to be negotiating reductions in good faith. The recent agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union—not only those involving nuclear and chemical weapons—are good examples of what I have in mind, but we shall need to move beyond such bilateral agreements.
To succeed in reducing proliferation as well as cutting the level of nuclear and chemical weapons will require from all the nations a degree of international co-operation and intrusion into their defence, industrial and research establishments which some will certainly not find it easy to accept. Nor will they find it easy to accept the cost not only of inspection but of the safe disposal of chemicals and of nuclear materials.
The destruction of Soviet chemical weapons was due to begin at the end of 1992 under the terms of the American-Soviet agreement. However, the Soviet Union has not yet begun—it cannot start. It has no place to put the material to be destroyed and, if it does find a special site, as we hope it will, it will cost about 3 billion roubles. That is the estimate of one of the committees of the North Atlantic Assembly.
It is also estimated that the building of the facilities to destroy that category of weapons alone will be 10 times as expensive as the creation of the weapons themselves. The verification of the United States/Soviet nuclear agreement, if it is carried out effectively in the first year as promised, will be about $1 billion. Clearly, the costs will have to be shared between nations if a system of international verification is to succeed. That is why I welcome the

assurance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that it is the Government's intention to help with those costs.
We know that the European Community, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO and the other bodies can play a part in monitoring the trade of weapons of mass destruction and in making agreements, but if there is to be a widespread system of verification which will have the confidence of all the nations with their widely differing cultures and political traditions, our country must press hard to put such matters increasingly within the ambit of the United Nations, of a United Nations agency working to internationally agreed procedures. That point was well and truly recognised by our Prime Minister who got the United Nations to increase its role last year when he put forward the idea of a register of conventional arms sales. We should take the initiative a stage further; that is the only way in which to ensure that the haves and have-nots work together in good faith. That is beginning to happen in Europe.
The former Warsaw pact countries do not fear the NATO alliance: they even want to join it. The republics in the new commonwealth which was the Soviet Union are heirs to the arms and inspections agreements that have already been negotiated. All those are the first steps, and they are important. They have done a great deal to bridge the gap that once divided us, and what is being done in Europe can be done globally.

6 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Notwithstanding the latter part of the remarks by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), I will begin by paying him a compliment. He may recall that, approximately 18 months ago, on an occasion similar to this, he said to the House that the pace of change until then had seemed breathtaking, but that it was nothing compared with the even swifter pace of change which was likely in the future. If he had told the House then that, within 18 months, the Soviet Union would be no more, none of us would have thought that that was a credible proposition. He has certainly been proved right, because the speed of change has accelerated far more than anyone could have expected.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire could have used a better source of information than the recently published Conservative party pamphlet, which I have had the opportunity to read. It is a rather tawdry little missive. I hope that, in future, he will find authorities for his propositions which carry a little more dignity. As he has heard me say many times before in the House, the proper approach to the changing nature of our defence requirement is to have a full-scale defence review and to follow that with an analysis of what our obligations are and are likely to be. That will determine the military resources necessary to meet those obligations, which in turn will determine what financial resources are necessary to meet the military resources. That is also the view of my colleagues in the House of Commons.
The 50 per cent. figure is an objective. However, I must make it clear—I hope that the hon. Member for East Hampshire will accept this—that it is entirely subordinate to the requirement to provide for the United Kingdom a


defence policy that recognises the changing nature of the defence obligations to which we are likely to be subject in future.
I may have difficulty sitting here with no one behind me. I recall that, in the days when the hon. Member for East Hampshire ploughed a lonely furrow against the poll tax and when young men used to be sent in to ambush him at every opportunity, he made a point of making his speeches from the precise position in which he is sitting at the moment, to ensure that his back was no more exposed than his front.
I feel a sense of disappointment that there is nothing in the motion about how we might limit nuclear proliferation. I understand that it is wrong to be too literal about the terms of the motion on an occasion such as this, but I feel a sense of disappointment that there is nothing about how we might limit nuclear proliferation; nothing about how to continue the process of multilateral nuclear disarmament—the process begun in the INF treaty and carried on by the signing of the START treaty in July between the United States and the Soviet Union—nothing about the contribution that the test ban treaty might make to discouraging the spread of nuclear weapons; nothing about how to persuade the emerging republics of the Soviet Union that their security need not depend on the possession of strategic nuclear weapons; and nothing about how we may inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons technology or the sale of tactical weapons out of the deepening disarray which now grips what was once the Soviet military machine. As the debate has demonstrated, those are matters on which there is substantial consensus in the House. It is a pity that the terms of the motion were not drawn to attract that consensus.
We cannot sensibly debate the issues raised by the motion without some discussion of the nature of nuclear deterrence. There is no intrinsic merit in nuclear weapons. Their utility is the perception they raise in the minds of a potential adversary. We all know that nuclear deterrence fails as a strategy if the weapons that lie behind it ever have to be used. Nuclear deterrence depends for its success on uncertainty, not about the availability of the weapons, but about their use.
To try to define more precisely the circumstances in which one would use nuclear weapons is extremely unwise. Here I part company from the approach of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who seemed to be anxious to try to establish the circumstances in which a Secretary of State for Defence might feel compelled to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. George Robertson: The very opposite.

Mr. Campbell: I was present for that part of the debate. If my understanding is wrong, I have no doubt that I will be better informed after reading Hansard.
What is clear beyond question is that it is wrong to say in which circumstances one would use nuclear weapons. Apart from anything else, that is almost certainly an invitation to an adversary to press on to the point at which nuclear weapons might be used.
Similarly, to announce a policy of no first use seems to be wholly contradictory to the theory of deterrence. Such a declaration, even if made in good faith, is worthless. It is unenforceable and can easily be abandoned without

notice. It embraces not deterrence, but retaliation. It accepts by implication that deterrence may fail. It may provoke an adversary to test the sincerity of a declaration of no first use.
Theories of deterrence within NATO have been the subject of considerable change. First there was mutual assured destruction—I always thought that it was aptly referred to by the acronym MAD—which was replaced by flexible response. That theory was displaced by the idea that nuclear weapons should only be weapons of last resort, and that in turn has been replaced by the theory of minimum deterrence. As the nature and the scale of the threat have changed, so has the doctrine.
It would be morally indefensible to continue to deploy nuclear weapons if there was no justification for doing so. Nothing would be more reprehensible than to indulge in an intellectual scramble to create some ex post facto justification for weapons that it had already been decided to keep. The deployment of nuclear weapons can be justified only if it is appropriate to the risk. Minimum deterrence means minimum in relation to the nature and scale of the weapons to be deployed. It cannot mean minimum in relation to the availability of the deterrent. A deterrent that is not constant may induce in an adversary a willingness to take risks in the hope that it is either inoperable or unavailable. In that real sense, a deterrent that is not constant may prove destructively destabilising.
If we are to have a strategic nuclear deterrent which is constant in the terms in which I have sought to define the word, we require a four-boat submarine fleet to bring it about. Before the topic for today's debate was announced, I had arranged to visit Barrow-in-Furness and Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. so that I could be better informed about the circumstances of that company.
Apart from the impression of extraordinary realism on the part of the confederation of trade unions and of the management, whom I met, the clear impression that I took away from the meeting was that, although people were clearly concerned about the provision of employment and about the continuation of the company, they did not see surface vessels, for example, as a substitute for the fourth submarine. They believed that, without the fourth submarine, which would have consequences for their business, they would be precluded from becoming involved in surface vessels.
The right hon. Member for Gorton appeared to suggest that, if there was no fourth submarine, it would be the policy of an incoming Labour Government—if that were the flavour of the month in which the election was held—to provide work for VSEL. My impression—the right hon. Member for Gorton can check this if he likes—is that those responsible for the conduct of the management of VSEL are more than doubtful about the company's ability to survive without the submarine.

Mr. Douglas: I may have been completely wrong, but I thought that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was going a little further than the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, by guaranteeing employment for the work force—more than 11,000 people, if I am right. Perhaps when the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) sums up, he will alter one letter—change "B" to "Y"—and we will get the same guarantee for Yarrow.

Mr. Campbell: That missile was aimed not so much at me as at those on the Labour Front Bench. I think that I will keep my head down and leave those concerned to have the necessary exchanges in due course. I would merely reinforce my point that the clear indication that I took away from my meetings in Barrow-in-Furness yesterday was that, without the fourth submarine, the survivability of VSEL is very much in question. Both management and unions told me, without any question of its being confidential, that, if the number of employees ever falls below 5,000, the question of the yard's continuation will become a matter of acute importance.

Mr. Franks: The hon. and learned Gentleman was here an hour or so ago, and no doubt heard the exchange between the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and myself. So far as I am aware, the right hon. Gentleman has not visited Barrow during my eight and a half years as an hon. Member or ever—unless he has come in the middle of the night.
I wonder whether, during the hon. and learned Gentleman's visit yesterday, representatives of management took him into the Devonshire dock ship hall. If so, no doubt he was taken to the ninth floor and could look down and see what was being built. Can you confirm—[HON. MEMBERS: "He."] Can the hon. and learned Member confirm that, as the Secretary of State said earlier, the fourth Trident submarine is currently under construction and is roughly one quarter built already?

Mr. Campbell: I understand that to be the case, although I have to say that I was not invited to view the submarine under construction because security clearance had not been obtained sufficiently far in advance. I may have a somewhat sinister appearance, and for that reason may not be regarded as someone to be trusted, although, as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, I was invited to inspect one of the French nuclear submarines. Clearly, the French authorities trust me more than the Ministry of Defence does.
The agreements at Maastricht have confirmed two things—first, the continuing primacy of NATO for the foreseeable future; secondly the acceptance by the countries of the European Community of an organic growth in the nature of the defence relationships between them.
NATO is likely to remain a nuclear alliance for the foreseeable future. The British contribution to NATO's nuclear armaments is not, nor need it be, designed to meet all the eventualities that NATO might face. Neither in NATO nor in the Community are we the only country that possesses nuclear weapons. If NATO's doctrine is truly one of minimum deterrence, surely it is not necessary for the United Kingdom to contribute at every level. That is why I see no reason to increase the number of warheads on the Trident system, if deployed, beyond those of the Polaris system which it is said to replace—I shall come back to the question of replacement in a moment.
If Polaris currently provides an effective contribution to minimum nuclear deterrence within NATO, why is it necessary to increase the number of warheads available with Trident by what may be a factor of three? In some respects, it is misplaced to call Trident a replacement. The range of Polaris missiles is 4,600 km, whereas the range of Trident missiles is 9,700 km. Trident missiles are generally regarded as more accurate.
Moreover, Polaris warheads are not independently targetable, whereas the warheads on Trident missiles are. That means that, if one adopts the approach that I have urged on the House and on the Secretary of State in the past—that we should deploy no more warheads on the Trident system than are available on the Polaris system—it would be able to hit 192 targets instead of 64.
The Government's answer to the proposition that we should not deploy any more warheads than are available on Polaris is that, because of the increasing sophistication of defensive systems, we need the enhanced capability that Trident possesses. But those defensive systems are to be found around Moscow, and the question that we must ask ourselves—even taking the Government's position as the correct one—is whether the United Kingdom, as a member of NATO, requires a strategic system with which, acting alone and independently, it can penetrate the defence system round Moscow.
To put the question another way, do we foresee circumstances in which the United Kingdom, acting independently, would want to fire strategic nuclear weapons at Moscow? I cannot conceive that the answer to either of those questions can be in the affirmative. In my judgment, the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO's doctrine of minimum deterrence can be met if we limit the number of warheads on the Trident system to be deployed.
I am also of the view that NATO's philosophy of minimum deterrence can be met without the United Kingdom having recourse to a tactical air-to-surface missile at a cost now put at around £3 billion. I understand that a decision on that has yet to be made. If what Ministers say is to be accepted, such a decision may be made towards the end of the century. There may be a NATO case for a tactical air-to-surface missile, although I think that a number of questions require answers.
First, in the absence of the doctrine of flexible response, is a tactical air-to-surface missile required? Secondly, being deployed on aircraft, is not TASM vulnerable to pre-emptive strike? Thirdly, did not the Gulf war show that the power of conventional weapons is so great that any so-called benefit from TASM can be more than outweighed by the use of conventional means? I can see no merit in the case for the United Kingdom deploying TASM. In the end, that case must depend on the proposition that all the NATO strategic and tactical nuclear weapons will be an insufficient deterrent without the addition of a united Kingdom tactical weapon. I beg leave to doubt the validity of that proposition.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): May I seek to clarify the hon. and learned Gentleman's thinking? I have heard him argue the case against TASM. Will he tell the House whether, in addition to what he said against TASM, he is saying that a sub-strategic weapon of any kind is unnecessary from the point of view of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Campbell: From the point of view of the United Kingdom, yes. I argue that the United Kingdom is a member of NATO, an alliance that is likely to be a nuclear alliance for the foreseeable future, and that there is no justification for the United Kingdom endeavouring to provide that alliance with nuclear weapons at every level. That seems a well-founded proposition.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: I should like to make some progress if I may. I have given way once or twice, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak before the witching hour of seven o'clock.
It is clear that the end of what came to be called the east-west confrontation has given rise to a whole range of new threats. It is clear from what has been said today that several hon. Members recognise that fact. Those threats are based on the nuclear proliferation that has been caused by the break-up of the Soviet Union and by the access to nuclear technology that several other countries have been able to achieve.
Following the successful containment of the Soviet empire, it seems to me that our efforts must be directed towards non-proliferation. In that respect, I agree with what the right hon. Member for Gorton said, in a particularly powerful and appropriate passage of his speech. The one thing we know is that we cannot afford a rash of new nuclear states. In the short term, it may not be possible to prevent some of the former Soviet republics from obtaining a nuclear capability, but surely it is essential to persuade them to subscribe, and to continue to subscribe, to a strategic-weapons centralised commandand-control system. We should be encouraging them to destroy both strategic and tactical weapons, and should be giving them the means to do so.
The scale of the problem with which we are dealing may be reflected in two figures. First, some estimate that there are 14,000 tactical nuclear weapons in the Commonwealth of Independent States. Secondly, it is estimated that there are 5,000 scientists—people previously in the employment of the Soviet Union—with experience in plutonium separation and uranium enrichment. One recalls that, after the second world war, the United States was careful to ensure that Dr. von Braun was transported to the United States-not because of any inherent qualities of personality but because he was the leading exponent of rocket technology. [Interruption.]

Mr. Douglas: It was not Ron Brown.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The names may sound similar, but I fear that comparisons are not easy to draw.
Under the somewhat frenetic stimulus of the impending general election, our own domestic concerns may seem increasingly urgent, but this debate may justify the conclusion that our safety is more likely to be assured by vigorous pursuit of the goals of non-proliferation and arms reduction in the international arena.

Mr. David Howell: Having listened to the expose of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I cannot say that I have a crystal-clear understanding of Liberal Democrat defence policy. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman raised some very interesting points. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) unkindly said that Liberal policy was two-faced. Having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that it would be quite an achievement for the Liberal Democrats to have just two faces. There is some work to be done before Liberal policy reaches that stage.
I fully concede that, in the past, one of the problems in debating nuclear deterrence has been that the issues are so fiendishly complex that it is very difficult to state them at

all. It is a relief that, on this occasion and in these times, one issue stands out with stark clarity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an assessment of the dangers in the world today, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who is extremely well versed in these matters, made a very informative speech. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman made the point that there could not be a worse time to contemplate weakening our nuclear defences or our commitment to them. It is crystal clear that, because of the terrifying vista of proliferation, now is the time to keep our nuclear defences and to ensure that they are totally effective. If our policies were not to succeed, we could be on the verge of a quantum leap in nuclear proliferation.
The number of nations with nuclear or ballistic missile capacity and the ability to gain access to plutonium warheads or enriched nuclear warheads could be about to double or treble. This is what, 20 or 30 years ago, defence and policy experts saw as a nightmare. The stark scene was set with great calmness and clarity by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by other hon. Members. It is one for which we have to plan with the utmost care.
Reference has fairly been made to another obvious point: that there must be some evolution of the nuclear doctrine of the west. Although there has not been final confirmation, it looks as though the context has changed totally. We are facing entirely new conditions and new threats. As the hon. Member for Attercliffe said in what was almost an aside, it may well be that, given the fact that threats could come from all sorts of areas and in all sorts of ways that we cannot yet quantify, the need will be not for major cuts in our defence spending but for expenditure in that voraciously expensive area of defence—effective anti-missile systems. In the world into which we are moving, people will rightly want to feel that their nations are absolutely secure against totally unpredictable and wild acts of international banditry. It is into anti-missile defences that we shall have to put many more resources.
Whether or not that is the right way forward, however, it seems to me that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) missed a point again and again. It is a point that his hon. Friends missed in the early 1980s. I refer to the fact that all improvements and other changes in the nuclear climate—all effective means of heading off the horror of proliferation, such as the achievements, jointly with the former Soviet empire, in winding down nuclear defences—are the result of operating from a position of strength. All the successful moves have resulted from negotiation from a position of strength. If that is not understood—and I fear that Labour Front Bench Members still do not understand it—those who see things differently would condemn this nation and the rest of the western alliance to ineffectiveness in dealing with the terrors and horrors of the spread of nuclear weapons.
The new dangers and challenges have been mentioned by almost all hon. Members who have spoken, so I shall not refer to them in detail. There has crept up on us the prospect that Iraq, probably Iran and perhaps even Algeria—countries which were dismissed as being incapable of producing ballistic missiles or nuclear warheads—have a very advanced capability. In addition, the break-up of the Soviet Union raises the prospect of proliferation and of the export of warheads, equipment and personnel. That is something of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded us. In that area, therefore, our mission is to do everything possible, by


means of our own policies and strategies and those of our NATO and other western allies, to discourage proliferation and, where possible, to encourage denuclearisation.
A number of the states which have succeeded the Soviet Union have said that they want to be non-nuclear. However, I am not hopeful on that front, and I think that the same can be said of the hon. Member for Attercliffe. The independent states may say that non-nuclear status is their intention, but Kazakhstan, for instance, is in what amounts to a nuclear neighbourhood of central Asia. It is surrounded by countries—Pakistan, India, China and Russia—with nuclear weapons openly developed or with the prospect of achieving nuclear weapons. It could be a very long time before the understandable aspiration of those new democracies, or semi-democracies, to be non-nuclear powers is realised. That is one challenge, anyway.
The next challenge—in a way, it is the biggest and the most immediate—is to help to locate, control and destroy thousands of nuclear weapons, as required not only by START but by the September Bush-Gorbachev proposals for non-strategic weapons and by the aspirations of those countries. Hon. Members are right to remind the House that those weapons are not just the new ones that are easily coded and described, and for which procedures are laid down, but old nuclear weapons as well.
We do not even know the number. We talk about 27,000 or 30,000 strategic and non-strategic weapons being around somewhere in the established Soviet system. It makes us warm to feel that Marshal Shaposhnikov and his colleagues have a location not only for the strategic weapons being controlled through their authorising and enabling codes—incidentally, we do not know whether they are authorising or enabling—but for all non-strategic weapons, both the warheads and the launchers, which I understand tend to be kept by different branches of the former Soviet armed forces.
On top of that, we do not really know—and we do not know whether the former Soviet command in control of communications systems knows—where all the older weapons are. We know by comparison that, since 1945, the United States has manufactured some 60,000 to 65,000 nuclear weapons, of which it has about 18,000 to 20,000 outstanding. Over the years, it has had a programme of, first, maintenance and control and, secondly, destroying, degrading, deactivating and dismantling nuclear weapons. Has that gone on in the successor states? Has it gone on in the Soviet Union? We have no idea. Until we establish that point, the danger of some of those warheads going for a walk and ending up in utterly irresponsible hands is very acute.
We are now entering—I detect almost a lack of urgency even in policy-making circles—a terrifying transition period in these matters. What existed before in the united Soviet Union was not just a few generals and a few little bags with code numbers. It was a huge complex of nuclear fabrication—the making of rich uranium, of course, and plutonium, and the component parts, the gigantic culture of science behind all that, and the vast knowledge and organisation required to maintain all those weapons under the control of the custody cadres—the custody troops, as opposed to the launch troops.
I refer also to the huge organisation and bureaucracy required for the transport and movement of those equipments and weapons, which at one time covered not just the Soviet Union but the whole of eastern Europe. It

is possible, although I agree that it is anecdotal, that some tactical warheads are still in areas of eastern Europe and have not finally left. Above all, there is the vast complexity of the control system at all levels, both for the strategic weapons which are in the four major republics and for the tactical weapons which we now know are spread over many more republics.
That is what existed before. It is too optimistic to assume that that system still exists. If it existed before, it depended upon central political authority. We know for a fact that central political authority does not exist. There was the Minsk agreement that the three signing-up members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, and perhaps Kazakhstan, would carry on with the stategic nuclear control system in the hands of the military, Marshal Shaposhnikov, and the four political heads of the four states.
We have no guarantees at all of the huge complex system which has to lie behind an effectively maintained system of control over a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, some new, some old, some well maintained, some deteriorating, some under close guard near Moscow, and some perhaps lost away under guard or perhaps not under adequate guard in faraway places. We have no guarantee that the politico-technical system required to contol all that exists any more. In fact, it is almost certain that it does not exist.
That leads me to the view that, when thinking about maintaining and being committed to nuclear deterrence—there was never a more important time to do that—we should also combine it with the most accelerated and intense efforts to work with our other NATO allies, including the Americans, in coming to grips with the problem in the successor states. Mr. Bartholomew, the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Defense, has gone with a team to Kiev, Alma Ata and other places. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will travel in that direction at the weekend. The American Senate has had some very good debates on the subject. After talking earlier about a $ billion sum that it wanted to devote to resources for coming to grips with the control of that splintered and dispersed vast arsenal, it voted an initial $400 million, which is still a vast resource.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm that the Americans have invited their NATO allies to begin to form a coalition force—an international task force—this time, not for getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but for bringing together all the nuclear expertise of NATO to ensure that the crumbling system of nuclear command and control in the former Soviet Union is replaced extremely quickly by effective systems which can maintain control of the system before real irresponsibility and real danger creep in.
What is needed over and above strengthening the territorial defence of this nation—as I suggested in my remarks about improved anti-missile defence, perhaps we should do more in that direction—is, of course, that the successor republics carry through their commitment to stick to the START provisions. It looks as though they have done that. They need also to carry through their commitment to stick to the principles outlined at the Bush-Gorbachev meeting in September 1991, which in theory was far-sighted in its undertakings and its verbal side as it pointed to a huge mutual destruction of non-strategic weapons.
We do not know whether any capacity exists to carry that out. We shall not know, until we ourselves assist in the forming of task forces, whether forces are equipped and have the resources to move all those weapons to deactivation and dismantling sites. We do not know whether the political resources exist, even if politicians are found in Alma Ata, Kiev and Moscow to agree to the fulfilment of START and the Bush-Gorbachev deal, and whether their political power extends to actually achieving all that at present.
There is a problem about sending vast teams of people to remote cities. They sit in hotels and discover that they cannot find anybody in charge of programmes. However, I do not think that that should deter us for one moment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to chair a Security Council meeting at the end of the month to try to focus on those matters, on how the new successor states fit into the international order, on how Russia takes its place as a member of the Security Council, and on what that will do to relationships with the other successor state countries. That is very good, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and our right hon. Friends to accept that the issue is by far the greatest and most dangerous issue facing the world at this moment.
The urgency is immense, and the task forces should now be mobilised. I know that the cry "public expenditure" goes up, but heaven knows, the prize is very great. If we fail to prevent proliferation and ensure that safe systems are in place, defence expenditure further down the line would dwarf anything that we might have to spend to get the task forces moving. We must also ensure that all successor states sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As we know from the Iraq experience, that treaty is not good enough. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which may be a worthy organisation, failed in the Iraq case. It did not spot what was going on. Clearly, the whole treaty needs beefing up very fast indeed. That, too, should be done not in a few months, not when we have considered all the factors, but now—at this moment—before the equipment begins to fall into other hands, as it will.
As has been said, if some of the Muslim states in the transcaucasian republics find such equipment on their soil, their incentive to hand it over to Moscow is low whereas their incentive to hand it over to their Muslim brothers in other areas is high. We must remember that irresistible incentives are being offered to some of the scientific teams, experts and individuals who could earn hard currency, be given housing facilities and exchange their present misery—their shortages of food, freezing conditions, inadequate heating and low salaries in devalued roubles—for the sort of salaries being offered in Baghdad, Tehran and Peking. The incentives are irresistible, and they will not be resisted. Those people will be—may already be—on the move.
The House, the Government and the policy makers of the west must consider either how to keep such people in Moscow where the former Soviet—now the Russian—academy of sciences is considering that question, or whether to bring them into western universities and academies, as happened with some of the leading German rocket scientists after the second world war. We must

consider how to do that and how to do it quickly because time is passing and the splintering effects that I have described are happening now.
My message to my right hon. Friends is that they are right to think in terms of total commitment to a strong nuclear defence at this time. All those who want to tinker with it or to suggest that we have half a deal or, say, three submarines should think again at what is a time of potential proliferation on a terrifying scale. Another message to my right hon. Friends and to policy makers in the west is that we need to move not only fast and thoroughly, but on what might be an expensive scale if we are not to leave the next 10 or 20 years with a terrifying legacy of proliferation of nuclear weapons that may be cheap, can still be delivered by ballistic missiles, but can nevertheless still inflict the most hideous damage on all our peoples, including this island.
I repeat that this issue is the major concern of our time. Playing games with our own deterrent is a form of global irresponsibility. As the right hon. Member for Gorton said, defence is the property of the nation. Having heard his speech this afternoon, I must confess to being glad that it is not the property of the Labour party—and never will be.

Mr. Tony Benn: When the election comes, I shall present myself to the people of Chesterfield as a candidate who is committed to the ending of nuclear weapons and bases in Britain. I shall do that because that is what I put to the electors in 1987 and 1984. I know that this is not a debate about individual records, but I resigned from my Front Bench in 1958–34 years ago—because I could not support a policy of using nuclear weapons. That is my position. When people ask, I shall also make clear to them the fact that there is a wide measure of agreement—if not total agreement—across the House about what should be done.
At the end of the cold war, it is necessary for those of us who take the view that I take to restate our position, given contemporary circumstances. One of the things that has happened in the past 12 months is that British, American and other forces have killed 200,000 Iraqis and have almost certainly caused the deaths of 150,000 children under five in Iraq. That was done with modern conventional forces, using more weapons and dropping more bombs than were dropped in the whole of the Vietnam war. Despite that, the Government still stress the importance of nuclear weapons. I opposed the Gulf war, and nothing that I have heard today has convinced me that it would have been better if we had had more powerful weapons.
When I listend to the Secretary of State's arguments, I became even more convinced of the rightness of what I have been saying. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons on a huge scale, but they did not protect the Soviet Union. It collapsed. Indeed, it collapsed partly because it had wasted so much money on nuclear weapons but I shall return to that point in a moment. Nuclear weapons do not guarantee the integrity of a state against either internal or external enemies.
If it is really true that some nuclear weapons are now in the hands of hungry, riotous and underpaid soldiers and are being serviced by nuclear scientists who are not receiving any money, what effect can a British deterrent


have? Those people probably do not have sufficient communications to know of the existence of such a deterrent.

Mr. Peter Viggers: rose——

Mr. Benn: I am outside the constraints of the 10-minute rule, but should like to develop my points first.
I put it to the Secretary of State that it was the policy of the west to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Ken Coates, who is a Member of the European Parliament and a friend of mine, has just returned from a mission to the Soviet Union. I asked him for his best estimate of the amount of gross national product that the Russians spent on defence. He said that it was between 30 and 70 per cent. I do not know the exact figure and I have no doubt that the Ministry of Defence has a better figure than that, but the fact is that the Soviet Union was bankrupted by its military expenditure. That, more than anything else, probably explains why changes have occurred in the Soviet Union.
I hope that no one thinks that what has happened in the Soviet Union happened because people in Moscow went around whispering to each other, "The British Government are ordering Trident: we had better abandon communism." That had nothing to do with what happened. The Soviet people wanted freedom. What happened had nothing to do with the threat from the west.
I must say something else so that it is put on the record before it passes into history. The western intelligence agents used Islam to undermine communism. There is all the evidence in the world to show that Khomeini was brought to power because it was thought that the fundamentalists in Iran would help to encourage rebellion in the Soviet Union. Nationalism was also encouraged.
We are also told that it is wicked for Russian scientists to leave the Soviet Union to get more money elsewhere. I thought that that was what market forces are all about. The Conservative party says that one cannot interfere with market forces, but if a Russian scientist goes to Tehran to work on nuclear matters. Conservative Members say that that must be stopped—if necessary by having more Trident missiles. What nonsense the whole businesss is. Turning to arms sales, are we not the world's second largest arms exporter? But if the Russians cannot get enough food and sell a few weapons to buy food, Conservative Members say that that must be stopped.
I fear that at the end of this period we shall see a repetition of the Gulf war—against Libya and Cuba and, possibly, the toppling of Castro and Gaddafi—because the Soviet Union's weakness has led the Americans to believe that they can run the world. That is what the new world order is about.
I should now like briefly to rehearse some of the arguments against nuclear weapons because people listening to the debate or reading the Hansard of it should know——

Mr. Viggers: The whole House respects the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman, who is a signatory to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). How many of his hon. Friends does the right hon. Gentleman think will put before their electors the clear policy that he intends to put before the voters of Chesterfield? How many Labour Members and Labour candidates does the right hon. Gentleman think would support the amendment that has been tabled by his

hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard himself—I say this in a friendly manner—as something of a political dodo?

Mr. Benn: My position is unilateralist and always has been. The hon. Gentleman has asked a very silly question because a substantial number of people in this country share my view—far more than might be suggested by the number of their parliamentary representatives.
Let us start with the argument that the cold war was ended by the nuclear deterrent and that we did not have a war because of that deterrent. It was not until I went to Hiroshima that I learned that, far from the bomb being dropped there to bring the Japanese to the peace table, they had offered to surrender weeks before. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima to tell the Russians that we had such a weapon. That all came out at the war crimes tribunals in Japan.
As those who know anything about me will know, I have never had any sympathy with the Soviet system and its lack of democracy, but I never believed that the Russians were threatening to invade western Europe. Like, I am sure, most people in this country, I never believed that. Does anyone honestly think that the Russians, with all their domestic problems, planned to take over West Germany, Italy and France and come to London to "deal with Ken Livingstone" or go to Northern Ireland to "deal with Ian Paisley"? Does anyone honestly think that that was their strategy? That threat was the most convenient political instrument ever used in domestic politics because those who criticised the Conservative Government were regarded as agents of the KGB.
Indeed, when the Secretary of State for Defence talks about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, he ought to know. His Department ordered the bugging of CND and treated its members, who were honest, decent people, as though they were enemies of the state. Cathy Massiter resigned from MI5 because she would not go along with its KGB tactics. So of course the Secretary of State knows a lot about CND. He probably knows a lot about what we say to each other on our telephones today. I hope that he does, because my telephone is the only remaining link that I have with the British establishment. So I speak clearly and I hope that those who are listening understand what I am saying.
The second argument against nuclear weapons is that we cannot afford them. I am one of probably only two or three remaining Members of Parliament who heard Aneurin Bevan make his resignation speech from the place where the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) now sits. He made it in 1951 when the big defence budget was introduced. It is worth reading what Nye said. He said that we could not afford it. When we look back at the reasons why the British economy has been weak in the past 40 years, one of the main ones is that we have wasted too much money on weapons of war that are not necessary.
I think that I am right in saying that six out of 10 scientists in Britain still work on defence or in defence-related industries. Let us consider the country which now has the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world—America. Bush has to go to Japan to plead with the Japanese to buy a few more gas guzzlers from Detroit. Why is Japan so rich? Because it has not wasted all that money on nuclear and other weapons. Neither have the Germans. We would not let them do so at the beginning. But the shops are full of Japanese cameras, videos, cars


and Japanese this and that. All that we can offer to sell is a few missiles to a sheikh. That is our major export drive as a major arms supplier. We cannot afford those weapons. That is a powerful reason for not having them.
The third argument against nuclear weapons is that they do not deter anyone. Has anyone re-examined the deterrent argument? Argentina attacked a nuclear state—Britain—when it went into the Falklands. Did nuclear weapons deter Galtieri? Not on your life. He knew that we could not use them against him. Saddam Hussein defied an ultimatum from two nuclear states—the United States and Britain. Did nuclear weapons deter him? Not on your life. He dropped some Scuds on another nuclear state—Israel. Did nuclear weapons deter him? Not on your life. The whole deterrent argument is a fraud.
I watched the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the spokesman for the Liberal party dancing on a minefield with the skill of a ballet dancer. He was really saying that, unless a country says that is will use nuclear weapons first, it is not worth having them.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I will read Hansard.
I now come to another point, and perhaps I may put on another hat. I was the Minister responsible for Aldermaston from 1966 to 1970. Like most people, I have had a chequered career. We do not have our own nuclear weapons. Since the Vulcan and the early bombs, we have depended on the Americans. Aldermaston may not even be able—I do not claim inside knowledge; if I had it, I would not speak in this way—to refurbish the weapons that the Americans give us. We do not have a nuclear deterrent and if we did we could not use it without the American worldwide satellite network which provides communication.
The Labour party was never unilateralist in Parliament. I challenge anyone to find one motion tabled in the House of Commons in which the Labour Front Bench advocated unilateralism. It simply talked about it at conference and then came back and did nothing about it. But can anyone imagine a more absurd democratic fiasco than that there should be election after election in which we discuss whether we should, or should not, have what we do not have anyway?
I tell the House solemnly one thing that the Americans would do. If Boris Yeltsin said, "I will take my nuclear weapons away from the Ukraine if you will take them away from Britain," the Americans would be wise to do so, because the Ukraine is more of a threat than Britain. The Americans could take our weapons away simply by cutting off the supply.
My last point is dear to my heart. Simply having nuclear weapons destroys democracy. When a country has them, Ministers—of all parties—lie. No Minister has ever told the truth about any central question of nuclear policy. We heard that today. We were told that the Government could not say when they would use nuclear weapons. If we ask whether they exist in any one location, the Government say that they cannot confirm or deny it. Every party has done the same. I am not making a party point. Mr. Attlee built the atom bomb without telling

Parliament. When Aneurin Bevan made that speech, he may have known—although I doubt it—that atomic bombs were being built. But Parliament did not know.
I think that there were some nuclear weapons on HMS Sheffield when it went down in the Falklands, but that has never been admitted. Then there was Chevaline and all the rest of it. To lie about nuclear weapons in the interests of defending one's country undermines what one is defending.
If the world continues spending money on weapons, the problems will worsen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the real problem of the world is poverty. The dangerous thing about hungry soldiers with nuclear weapons in Russia is that they are hungry. The dangerous thing about the third world is that it does not have enough to eat. If nuclear weapons would give a country a little more territory or something else, it might well be tempted by them. I do not believe that the world would be a safer place if we had more nuclear weapons.
Of course, any leader of a third-world country who reads the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to use it in his own assembly to say, "If the British say that, it must be right for Iran, Libya and everywhere else." The Secretary of State made the most powerful case for nuclear proliferation. We are proliferating with Trident. It represents a major addition to our armoury.
Britain is a small country, but we have such pretensions—we speak as though we were a super-power. We are a tiny country, and the idea that our deterrent will somehow determine whether Kazakhstan will agree to inspection is misleading. If one continues misleading people, in the end it will catch up with one. That is what Russia learned. It is time that we came to terms with the fact that we are a small island off the west coast of Europe. We depend on a new association across the whole of Europe. I have introduced a Bill to create a commonwealth of Europe including the whole lot. That is a better way of dealing with the problem of Russia. We should bring them into a pan-European association rather than building up our own weapons, which is what the Liberal party has policies for. We must seek political solutions to problems which we are still told are best dealt with by military means.
There is a great deal of poverty in the world. In the west we are heading for a slump. I do not think that it is a recession. I refer to the whole of the west—I am not merely joining in the swiping at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We must recognise that in a slump people swing to the right, not to the left. I am old enough to remember the pre-war Europe, with Pilsudski in Poland, Field Marshal Mannerheim, King Zog, King Michael, King Carol, Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar and Franco. That was a world which had weapons and had a slump. Unless we put our money into recovery, meeting human need and giving people hope again, and unless we build political structures to deal with those problems, the problems will get worse. People will blame the Germans or others when in fact our economic system is deteriorating. Someone once said that we had the best defended dole queues in the world. That was an old joke in the Labour movement. It is even more true now.
We must find political answers. Obviously, I shall oppose the Government tonight, but neither can I support the Labour amendment, as I have told the Opposition Chief Whip. Without spelling it out, the amendment incorporates the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent, so


I cannot support it. I say that in all conscience, and I hope that conscience still has a tiny place in British politics. But it is not just conscience. The arguments against the policy are strong, and millions of people in Britain and throughout the world share that view.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches operates from 7 o'clock.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) must be commended, for two reasons. First, he has woken up the debate, 'which was getting into a sombre mood. Secondly, he has brought us back to the central point of the debate. If, one day in the future, the Labour party won a general election, would the views that we have just heard expressed have majority support on the Labour Benches or not? I know my answer to that question.
At the start of this debate, there was some suggestion that it was inappropriate, that the House was pursuing the wrong hare. Those of us who have sat through the debate so far will have realised that it is a highly relevant debate. We have had some excellent speeches and I believe that the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was most important.
People outside the House, as well as those inside it, are extremely concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons within what was the Soviet Union. It is the central issue in terms of British foreign policy, and I am delighted at the way in which the Government have been handling it. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will chair a meeting of the Security Council and I am delighted that the Government recognise the great role that the United Nations must play if we are to avoid further proliferation. We have a new Secretary-General in New York, Dr. Boutros Ghali, and I believe that he well understands the need during his five-year term of office to turn into reality President Bush's phrase about the new world order, and what better way of doing that than by making genuine progress in checking nuclear proliferation?
In October, I was in Moscow at the human rights conference with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and we had a discussion there with the Ukrainian delegation to the conference. To start with, members of that delegation said that they expected that it would be the Ukrainian Government's policy to have no nuclear weapons. Then, of course, as the discussion proceeded, they admitted that they would not give up their nuclear weapons without striking a very good bargain with Russia in return. I think that matters have moved on even during the intervening few weeks.
I have always been a strong supporter of Britain's having an independent nuclear deterrent. Unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, I believe that we have just that. Since the war, eight different Governments have looked into this question—obviously, Governments of different persuasions—and have come to the conclusion that it is in the national interest to have such a deterrent. Taking that a little further, it means that several hundred Cabinet members must have heard the arguments for and against, and reached that consensus.
There are two main reasons for having an independent nuclear deterrent. First, I believe strongly that one western European NATO country should be in possession of such a weapons system. We know perfectly well that, while France has a force de frappe, that country has distanced itself from NATO planning over the years and continues to do so.
Just after I came to the House of Commons I was taken on a tour to see the French nuclear deterrent. We visited one of its nuclear submarines. I shall never forget seeing a fish bowl in the wardroom mess; several hundred metres below the surface, the officers relaxing over dinner could watch fish swimming around in the tank. We were also shown the command and control centre and funny things sticking out of silos. I have no doubt that the French have a good system, but it must be an integral part of NATO; that is the important point.
Secondly, I support the argument which was well to the fore during the time of the east-west confrontation, that there should be two different centres of decision making. I happen to believe that the United States will withdraw from Europe to a large extent over the next decade, unwelcome though that may be to us, if not to the French. That is why I believe that it is particularly important to emphasise the need for two different centres of decision making.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State for Defence, I detected signs that in certain circumstances the British Government would be prepared to throw Britain's nuclear deterrent into the disarmament pot. It was never really spelled out exactly what those circumstances would be. I believe, without there having been any major statement from the Government Front Bench, that we have now given up that policy, and that we are right to do so.
In recent years, there has been a dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons involving Israel and Iraq, and we read that Pakistan may also be in that league. It would be fatal at this time of great uncertainty for Britain to decide either that we did not need a nuclear deterrent or that in some way we could get by with a half-hearted job—three boats instead of four, for example. I could equally argue the case for five boats, so that we could have two permanently on patrol. I should hate to stand up in a public place and argue the case for three.
Equally, I should hate to stand up in a public place and argue the case for a nuclear deterrent that did not deter. How much the Russians and others have improved their defences in recent years seems to have been forgotten. If the deterrent is to work, it must to be able to get through such defences.
I feel sure that our allies welcome Britain's nuclear deterrent. They formally stated their position in the 1974 Ottawa declaration. Rather more recently, on 11 March 1982, President Reagan, speaking of the help that the United States had given Britain over Trident and its components, said:
The United States' readiness to provide these systems is a demonstration of the great importance which the US Government attach to the maintenance by the UK of an independent nuclear deterrent.
Some years ago President Reagan talked in terms of a world free of nuclear weapons. I seem to remember that President Gorbachev echoed the same cry. I thought that that was a fatal mistake. Imagine a world free of nuclear weapons, when we all know perfectly well that one cannot


disinvent nuclear weapons. There is an old story—I have no idea whether it is true—about a professor at Princeton university asking his students to see if, over a few weeks, they could invent a nuclear weapon from the records available to the public in the United States. After a few weeks, the exercise had to be aborted because they were proving all too successful.
A world in which there were no nuclear weapons, in which one evil country could set about inventing and producing nuclear weapons, strikes me as an extraordinarily unpleasant world in which to have to live.
Finally, I wish to counter the suggestion which I have been reading in articles published during the Christmas recess that somehow the world today is more dangerous than it was a few years ago. I, like other speakers, have emphasised just how alarmed we are about nuclear proliferation, but I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to the Khrushchev era, when the Soviet Union was hellbent on expansion in north Africa and southern Africa and was prepared to use force to gain its way, when the Warsaw pact was still in existence, when there were vast conventional armies waiting to be deployed by the Kremlin. Surely we can all see that times were far more dangerous then.
I happened to be serving in the Berlin garrison at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I did not doubt the possibility that the Soviet Union might retaliate in Germany, over Berlin, rather than nearer the United States. I was in the House in January 1990 when Francis Pym, then Secretary of State for Defence, addressed the House on the subject of nuclear weapons. He said:
For good or ill, we live in a world where nuclear weapons exist. We seek increasingly to control them in various ways, but we cannot disinvent them.
I should dearly like…to see the world kept in peace and freedom by a security system which has less need to possess such awful instruments in reserve, or better still, no need. To desire a new system is one thing; to make it real, effective and dependable is quite another…The Government are not prepared to dispense with, or weaken, the structure which shelters us now."—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 672–3.]
Those words are just as appropriate in 1992 as they were in January 1980.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I want to explore a perspective which so far has been missing from the debate, although the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) touched on it when he mentioned the importance of the European Community; unfortunately, he then veered away from that point.
A succession of speakers have discussed how best to defend and secure our vital national interests; how our national defence planning will be affected by changes in the east; how much we as a nation can afford to spend on defence; and how we can contribute to the progress of arms reduction and non-proliferation in the world. All these questions start from too narrow a premise, and all could be more sensibly discussed, and need to be discussed, from the perspective of our part in the European Community.
If, as the Government say, we are engaged in a fundamental review looking forward 20 or 30 years, we need to recognise that the biggest adjustment with which

this House will have to cope over that period will be the move away from a purely national concept of our security interests to one based on a more European, and more precisely a more Community, perspective. That idea represents a striking omission from tonight's debate and from previous debates on these issues, which have focused too narrowly on national interests that are rapidly becoming out of date.
The shape of Britain's world in 20 or 30 years' time was drawn in Maastricht. What was agreed there was not a treaty of collaboration or of closer co-operation; it was not even a treaty of friendship or an alliance; it was nothing less than a treaty of political union, a fact which has yet to penetrate the public consciousness. It was not taken up even in the most aware journalistic comment after the agreement, but in the remainder of this year it will become the salient, all-absorbing fact demanding our attention.
Two historic forms of agreement on defence were entered into at Maastricht. Gone is the old separation between foreign policy and defence. Gone too is the theological distinction between political and other aspects of security. At the heart of political union is a commitment to develop a common defence policy leading in time to a common defence. The text is absolutely clear on that score—it is one area that the Government did not opt out of. The commitment in the treaty is unmistakable, and the Government must begin to base all their long-term thinking and planning on the perspective of the Community, even in defence.
Two aspects of the Maastricht agreement relate particularly to this debate. One is that the European Commission is to be involved in this process from the outset. The treaty requires that the Commission be consulted and kept informed on defence matters. That is important, because it represents a move away from the separate pillar approach advocated by the British Government. The Commission already has a foot in the door, and over time that will lead, no doubt, to it taking on a co-ordinating and servicing role in defence.
The second point of the treaty to which I draw attention is that the chosen vehicle for defence co-operation, the Western European Union, is, contrary to what the Government repeatedly say, de facto an integral part of European union. Theoretically it may be true, as the Foreign Secretary continually says, that WEU is a separate institution based on a wholly separate treaty, but it has no independent life. The members of WEU are a sub-set of the members of the European Council, so anything decided by the European Council is automatically agreed to by the Western European Union——

Mr. Douglas: The two bodies are not the same.

Mr. Macdonald: As I said, the members of the WEU are a sub-set of the European Council; some members of the Council are not members of WEU. The distinction that some try to draw between WEU and other institutions of political union in the Community is nothing more than a formality. I suspect that, after 1997, even that distinction will disappear.
These developments are irresistible. We cannot have political union without defence union, and we cannot have monetary union without political union. That is not just a matter of theory; it is a matter of supreme practical importance for British nuclear defence. By the end of this decade, it will be inconceivable that British strategic


nuclear weapons—or French, for that matter—should be used or even threatened or deployed separately from and against the wishes of the Community. We must face that fact. There will be no space in the Community of the future for an ultimate defence of separate and divergent national interests.
As always, other European Governments are exploring these emerging realities. President Mitterrand talked over the weekend of placing the French nuclear deterrent at the disposal of Europe. Jacques Delors, possibly the next President of France, has gone even further and spoken of a Community deterrent collectively owned and controlled. We need to think urgently about these ideas. Unless we do, we will find the agenda set in this area, as in social and economic policy, by others.
The British and French Governments should be talking about establishing co-operation in nuclear matters on a more formal basis. They should be discussing combined patrolling and targeting. They should be implementing immediately the recommendation in the first report of the Defence Select Committee to establish permanent liaison officers at French bases. Above all, they should co-ordinate their work on procurement policy.
Doe we really need an aggregate of nine or 10 strategic submarines in Europe? Would not fewer than half that number be enough to service our collective needs? That would release public funds for other more productive purposes aned contribute positively on a European scale to the process of arms reduction in which Russia and America are already engaged.
Far from being the birth of a bloated nuclear super-power, the emergence of a collective European defence identity can contribute directly and powerfully to the process of arms control and non-proliferation. Consolidation, above all, is the very opposite of proliferation, and consolidation is exactly what the Government advocate in the ruins of the Soviet empire. We rightly fear the emergence of four strategic nuclear powers where one existed before in the Soviet Union.
We urge a collective defence identity upon them in the form of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Is it not hypocritical, therefore, for us to resist that logic in western Europe. A European defence community can and should mean fewer weapons in fewer hands. That is what we should be talking about instead of the arcane and absurd debate about four versus three submarines.

Sir Anthony Durant: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Any Government are responsible for the defence of the realm to avoid attack, to avoid occupation and, perhaps more important these days, to avoid political blackmail. We live in a dangerous world caused not so much now by the eastern and western blocks as by the break-up of the Soviet Union, which may lead to great problems. The question is, do we lower our guard?
My father served in three wars—the Boer war, the great war and the last war. He gave me just one piece of advice: "Do not lower your guard—all three wars were terrible and two of them could have been avoided if we had not lowered our guard." I have always supported that view.
We face uncertainty in the east and in the Arab countries. We do not know where proliferation of nuclear weapons will take place. It may happen in south America—one does not know. We hear that North Korea is

possibly only a year away from having a nuclear weapon. Knowledge about nuclear weapons may be sold, stolen or provided by western Governments to some of those countries. Iraq was a good example.
The Government have maintained a nuclear deterrent all the time they have been in office, in spite of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The women were at Greenham Common, just down the road from me, for months and months, but they made not a ha'p'orth of difference. It was an abortive and ineffective campaign. They did not stop the arrival of cruise missiles, nor did they stop the training or the tests, although they sat there month after month.
Then we had crazy Labour councils with nuclear-free zones. I lived in a nuclear-free zone just across the river in Lambeth.

Mr. Tony Banks: And you did not get blown up.

Sir Anthony Durant: No thanks to the council. I used to sleep easy in my bed because I thought that the Russians would not drop anything on me in Lambeth, although they might in Westminster. We have already heard from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that he doubted whether Mr. Gorbachev would have taken any notice of nuclear-free zones. It was a crazy policy, which cost a lot of money.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield made a good point when he said that his party had always been against nuclear weapons at conferences but not on the Front Bench in the House. We have seen that many times. In September 1985, Tribunerelaunched a statement headed "Democratic Socialism", which said that the search for peace was a determination to disengage immediately from the nuclear arms race. It also said that a Britain not aligned to any major power was best placed to advance those policies.
Who signed that statement? It is a surprising list of people, including the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and, above all, for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was described by Tribune as one of those instrumental in winning the Labour party to a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That was in Tribune on 6 September 1985.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Why does the hon. Gentleman not write his own speeches?

Sir Anthony Durant: I only wanted to give a helpful view. At least half the Labour Members do not believe what their Front Bench is saying. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) signed that document, too, so there is no confidence there.
We must have all four Trident submarines. On 28 December, The Timesagreed with that view and was critical of the stance of the Labour party. The wife of the Leader of the Opposition was a leading member of CND and went to Greenham Common. The Leader of the Opposition was also a member of CND—he was not very active, but I understand that he paid the subscription until recently.
There is no credibility when Opposition Members say that they are in favour of retaining the nuclear deterrent and Trident. Their record is bad. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and some of his Back-Bench colleagues are honourable and have always stuck to their view. Like the hon. Member for Chesterfield, they


have promoted their view. I do not agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman says, but at least his position is honourable.
What would happen if Labour were elected next time? Who would call the tune—the Labour conference, the Tribune group, or the extreme left? I do not believe that it would be those on the Front Bench, but rather those who sit on the Back Benches.

Mr. John Cartwright: In examining the problems of nuclear defence, I take as my starting point NATO, which has kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years. It is a tried and trusted organisation. Therefore, British nuclear defence policy should be firmly in line with the nuclear policy of NATO. The Rome declaration of 7 and 8 November last year set out NATO's strategic concept. That made it clear that, to prevent war and to protect peace, the alliance should retain a mix of nuclear and conventional forces in Europe.
The communiqué also stated the central point which is coming out of the debate—that conventional forces alone cannot prevent war. Nuclear eapons are unique in rendering the risks of aggression incalculable and unacceptable. No other weapons can sow such seeds of doubt in the mind of an aggressor. That is what gives them such great deterrent power.
The NATO concept also made it clear that there must be flexibility and survivability of nuclear weapons to ensure that they remain effective and credible. There is no point in clinging to nuclear weapon systems which are outdated or ineffective. That is common sense. However, it means that, if we maintain a nuclear deterrent, it must from time to time be modernised and brought up to date.
The NATO concept also called for adequate sub-strategic forces based in Europe to provide an essential link with the strategic nuclear forces and to reinforce the transatlantic relationship. The welcome removal of the intermediate nuclear forces and the negotiating away of the short-range and tactical battlefield nuclear forces means that the sub-strategic systems that NATO has will consist solely of dual-capable aircraft.
We have to accept that manned aircraft will be increasingly vulnerable to improving air defences. The experience in the Gulf war does not invalidate that view. Iraqi air defences crumbled under the sheer weight of a non-stop onslaught. That unequal scenario is unlikely to be repeated in any more balanced conflict. The early stages of the Gulf war underlined the effectiveness of straightforward Iraqi conventional anti-aircraft fire and the importance of stand-off weapons which could be launched from aircraft well beyond the reach of anti-aircraft systems.
Therefore, I believe that it is absolutely vital that NATO develops and deploys an effective tactical air-to-surface missile with a nuclear capability. If it does not, I believe that NATO's sub-strategic systems will steadily lose both effectiveness and credibility. Against the background of growing nuclear proliferation, that would be a matter of great concern.
Even without the events in the Soviet Union, which have been mentioned so frequently in today's debate, there are obvious risks in increasing the number of nations with

not just the ability to develop nuclear weapons, but the technology involved in ballistic missiles so that they can develop the delivery systems related to nuclear weapons. That is a dangerous enough prospect, but the disintegration of the former Soviet Union adds to the risks.
Most of us accept that it should be possible to maintain effective controls and safeguards over the former Soviet Union strategic nuclear weapons, but there are large numbers of sub-strategic systems, including short-range weapons, tactical weapons, battlefield systems and nuclear artillery. No one seems to know how many systems there are, but estimates that I have seen put the figure at about 14,000. Those are systems about which we should be most seriously concerned because they could easily find their way into dangerous hands. As other hon. Members have said, the obvious risks of former Soviet scientists selling their expertise to willing buyers is a chilling prospect.
Therefore, I believe that the British policy should rest clearly on the completion of the Trident programme. I have heard the arguments that it is possible to co-ordinate the pattern of patrols and refits to ensure that one boat can be kept on station with only a three-submarine fleet. However, that gives us no margin for the unexpected, and Murphy's law should have taught us that the unexpected is always likely to happen. We are well aware of the problems with the nuclear propulsion systems in Polaris submarines, and similar problems can occur in the Trident system. A four-boat Trident fleet would provide assurance against unforseen emergencies. There is no point in having a deterrent unless it is clearly seen to work. The comparatively small saving gained by cancelling a fourth submarine would be a false economy because it would seriously undermine the credibility of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
Is Trident enough? It is a flexible system, based on four submarines that each carry 16 missiles which each have eight warheads, giving a total potential of 512 warheads. As other hon. Members have said, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the missile does not have to be operated at that level. It is a flexible system which can be used at much lower levels of fire power if circumstances allow.
The number of missiles in each submarine can be reduced, as can the number of warheads on each missile. Therefore, it can be used to provide a minimum strategic deterrent at whatever level is needed. I strongly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East when he questions our slavish adherence to the concept of the Moscow criteria. Why should we take the best protected Russian city and say that our ability to deliver a nuclear deterrent must be geared to the ability to strike Moscow? I believe that Trident could be operated effectively at a much lower level of fire power.
We must also ask whether Trident, by itself, is enough to meet the nuclear deterrence that Britain needs. However flexible Trident is, it clearly cannot provide a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent in the United Kingdom. At present, that sub-strategic system is carried by manned aircraft with WE177 free-fall nuclear bombs. We all know that it is an aging system that will have to be replaced, if not by the turn of this century, certainly early in the next one. Here I part company with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East——

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Not for the first time.

Mr. Cartwright: Or, I guess, for the last time.
In my view there is a powerful case for Britain to deploy a tactical air-to-surface missile. I have already referred to the problems of improving the aircraft defences with which manned aircraft will have to deal. TASM is a flexible system which can be used against a wide variety of targets including airports, ports, barracks, troop concentrations, industrial facilities or even ships. There is no way that Trident can be used in such a scenario.
TASM has the ability to respond swiftly, almost anywhere in the world and the flexibility to be retargetted during an aircraft's flight. It can deliver small numbers of nuclear warheads against widely spaced targets. It enables the aircraft to be used in conventional or nuclear roles. Trident cannot play such a flexible sub-strategic role.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Harding argued at a lecture last year that Britain needed options in the nuclear basket in addition to Trident. He saw Trident—as most of us do—as a last-ditch weapon to be used only against a threat of total destruction. TASM provides the ability to deal with risks that fall well short of that doomsday scenario but which are likely to occur in an unstable world.
I do not believe that any of us needs to read newspapers or watch television to know that the world remains a dangerous and uncertain place. The clear and obvious threat under which we have lived for the past 40 years may have gone, but it has been replaced by a series of new threats. They may be less clear, but they are no less dangerous in a world in which there is likely to be an increasing number of nuclear-capable nations.
This is no time for vagueness, uncertainty or dubious double talk. We must make it absolutely crystal clear that, while other nations maintain nuclear weapons that can threaten this country and its people, we must maintain an effective nuclear capability of our own. I believe that most people in this country regard that as simple, prudent common sense.

Mr. Peter Viggers: My sense of commitment to defence started early, as I am just old enough to remember the time when this country was under missile attack in the last war, with Vls and V2s flying over. That led me to believe that we must always remain strong enough to defend ourselves fully.
I formed my political views during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s—a time of considerable danger and threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact countries. Wherever we looked, in whichever category—helicopters, artillery with nuclear capacity, tactical nuclear weapons or aircraft—the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact had that superiority of about two and a half or three to one which analysts of defence and offence have always felt to be sufficient to enable an attack to succeed.
That was a time of danger. People could not work out why the Warsaw pact countries needed such massive forces. Why did the Warsaw pact forces need such a huge submarine superiority? It could not possibly be merely to defend their communication lines, because those were internal land lines. Therefore, the only conclusion for a cautious person to reach was that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact forces were poised for offence.
I suppose that, with hindsight, it is possible to say that the military-industrial complex within the Warsaw pact Soviet Union countries led to that massive military

expansion, but any wise observer in those days had to recognise that the western countries and NATO faced a threat. However, that was the time of the flowering of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the "Ban the Bomb" marches, the campaigns for one-sided unilateral disarmament. CND campaigned actively and swam against the tide of facts and public opinion. Fortunately, public opinion had much more sense than CND both now and then, and the unilateral disarmament policies of the Labour and Liberal parties played a significant part in their electoral failures of 1983 and 1987.
There is now a completely new position, especially in terms of nuclear weapons. The resolution of the United Kingdom and the United States in particular led to the western powers deploying cruise and Pershing missiles. In turn, that led to the intermediate nuclear forces treaty and proved a significant factor in encouraging the Soviet Union to agree to it. Ultimately, it resulted in the removal of intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe. That seemed a big step at the time, but it was nothing compared with the massive steps taken since—the abolition of the Warsaw pact and dissolution of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, the Ukraine, of all places, has become the world's third largest holder of strategic nuclear warheads after the United States and Russia. The six Islamic republics within the old Soviet Union have nuclear weapons, and they are all in economic and political turmoil, with no certainty of steady military control.
Several estimates have been made tonight of the number of scientists and military specialists within the old Soviet Union who are now available because their skills are no longer required or they are not being fully paid. Those estimates were low. The authoritative defence magazine Jane's Defence Weeklyreported last week that there were 1·7 million skilled weapons technologists in the former Soviet Union, of whom 30,000 were specialists in developing nuclear weapons.
Whatever the number, there are fears of a brain drain of scientists recruited by regional powers within the old Soviet Union or by other middle European powers. We know that Iran, helped by Pakistan and China, is recruiting individuals from the old Soviet Union, and that Algeria is building nuclear plants with Chinese help. One can add to that the probable nuclear bombing capacity of Israel, South Africa, China, India, and Pakistan. Other countries are close to possessing nuclear bombs, with North Korea, Libya and Algeria on the nuclear threshold. All that is deeply worrying.
The world has changed, but the principles on which we should base our approach to nuclear weapons remain the same. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented; it is a fact that they exist. As one of the original nuclear powers, we must maintain a minimum appropriate nuclear capacity as a deterrent—and, despite the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as a stable democracy with a high worldwide standing, we must participate in the future dialogue on controls and limits on proliferation.
The way ahead must be to strengthen international controls. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna is well respected, but it is acknowledged that its powers are severely limited. The 1970 non-proliferation treaty was signed by 142 nations, but it is widely thought that five of them subsequently developed a nuclear bomb capacity. With Iran and Iraq both signatories, and many other powers within the IAEA seeking to build up a


nuclear capacity, no reliance can be placed on present powers. The need for wider powers of inspection and verification is demonstrated by the fact that the IAEA took some six to eight months to discover the extent of Iraq's nuclear bombs.
I respect very much the way in which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have been working to set a list of arms exports and to develop a dialogue in respect of non-proliferation. The Government's position is clear. They will maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent, and negotiate to prevent further proliferation and to reduce arms stocks.
Labour's position is transparently clear. We know that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) wants to be Prime Minister. The Opposition do not like us making a political point out of defence. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gets very angry, saying that Labour voters are just as patriotic as Conservative voters and have fought with the same bravery and courage. That is absolutely true. Of course Labour supporters in the armed forces are as loyal and brave as those who support the Conservative party. I may add, however, that it appears that many Labour supporters in the constituency that I represent vote Conservative.
The point at issue is not the loyalty and bravery of Labour supporters but the leadership of the Labour party, and the leadership that Labour would provide if it ever formed a Government. It is a question of whether service men and women can have confidence in political leaders who have manifestly sacrificed their principles in pursuit of power and who in their heart of hearts lack conviction on the need to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrents.
Labour's present posture owes nothing to conviction and everything to expediency. Long may my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues maintain their responsibility for defence.

Mr. John McAllion: One might assume that, in taking up a whole day of parliamentary business this close to a general election, the Government genuinely wanted a national debate about the usefulness or uselessness of nuclear weapons as a means of protecting our people and our country at a time of massive and rapid political change. The majority of right hon. and hon. Members might have done so—at least until they clapped eyes on the Government motion, whose nine lines reveal the Government's abject failure even to begin to understand the massive changes sweeping the world.
Those nine lines manifest the cold war mentality into which the Government are hopelessly and helplessly locked. They could well have been drafted in 1979 for all the notice that the motion takes of recent world events. All the cold war claptrap is to be found there. It asks the House to support
unequivocally the concept of nuclear deterrence and the retention of a credible United Kingdom nuclear deterrent, while other countries have, or seek to acquire, nuclear weapons".
Against whom are those nuclear weapons to be directed? All the theories that surround the concept of nuclear

deterrence—mutually assured destruction, flexible response, nuclear wars, and first use of nuclear weapons—have a common denominator: the perceived threat from a known enemy capable of launching a nuclear attack on the United Kingdom and its allies.
That enemy was once perceived to be the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, but the Soviet Union no longer exists, and the Warsaw pact is no more. Who are we now threatening with nuclear assured destruction? Against whom are we to make a flexible response and to fight a limited nuclear war? On which territories are Trident's new missiles targeted?
We heard tonight that the perceived threat now is the new Soviet republics—perhaps the four that the Secretary of State for Defence said possess between them 13,000 nuclear warheads. However, the Secretary of State said that those same republics are experiencing a complete collapse of morale in their armed forces and are unable to pay their nuclear scientists—who are being poached not by other nuclear powers but by third-world countries.
It is now generally acknowledged that those republics are so broken that they cannot hope even to feed their own people in the immediate future—yet we are asked to believe that those same broken-backed economies can credibly maintain a huge strategic nuclear stockpile and target it efficiently and effectively on the United Kingdom and thousands of other targets in the west.
If the Secretary of State for Defence recognises the need for a credible nuclear deterrent in Trident, he must also acknowledge that the perceived threat to this country's security must be credible. In truth, the nuclear threat posed by the post-Soviet republics cannot and will not be taken seriously by anyone outside the ranks of the Government supporters.
We are asked to accept as credible also a Government policy that offers those republics food aid, technical know-how, a seat at the summit, friendship with the Prime Minister at least until the next general election, and western investment—while also threatening those same republics with annihilation. No one can say with any sincerity that that represents a credible defence and foreign policy.
However, the real trouble with the Government's defence policy is not its lack of credibility. After all, a Government who lack credibility in all their other policies cannot be expected to offer a credible defence policy.
The real trouble is the danger posed by the Government's policy to world peace in general, and to the country's security needs in particular. The Secretary of State himself described what he called a very grave and dangerous world situation. He said that the risk of nuclear proliferation had never been greater; he spoke of non-nuclear countries actively enlisting nuclear scientists from the former Soviet Union; he referred to at least nine third-world countries that were likely to acquire nuclear weapons in the near future, and said that that must be stopped at all costs.
Those are fine words—but what is to be done about the facts? What the Government obviously will not do is act on those words. We do not deter other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons by refusing to abandon such weapons ourselves. The fact is that, if nuclear weapons are essential for our defence in an uncertain and dangerous world, they must also be essential for the defence of every other sovereign nation that has the ability and the capacity to build them.
We cannot expect other countries not to acquire nuclear weapons while we are refusing to abandon them in exactly the same world circumstances—sometimes, indeed, in much less threatening circumstances. What credibility can the Foreign Secretary possess when he goes to the Ukraine and tries to persuade it to abandon nuclear weapons? The Ukraine sits next door to Russia; it has no conventional forces of its own, and it is threatened far more by Russia than are the people of this country. If Conservative Members cannot appreciate that, in such circumstances, the Foreign Secretary can have no credibility whatever, limited intelligence must be preventing them from doing so.
The real problem with the enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty is not so much the lack of special inspections, or the lax controls on nuclear supplies, as the blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency displayed by permanent Security Council members such as the United Kingdom, which are demanding one set of rules for themselves and a completely different set for every other country in the world. That is a recipe for proliferation, not for non-proliferation—a recipe that will lead the world into catastrophe if we allow the Government to get away with it.
Although the Foreign Secretary has not taken part in today's debate, he made a contribution earlier this week, via the press. He suggested that any weakening of our support for nuclear weapons would send the wrong message to the likes of Colonel Gadaffi. Where has the Foreign Secretary been for the past 40 years of so-called nuclear deterrence? Where is the evidence that the existence of nuclear weapons has had any effect in deterring those who have launched military adventures around the world, terrorist outrages and wars that have wasted millions of lives?
Why did a period of nuclear deterrence not prevent the wars in south-east Asia? Why is the middle east not now a beacon of security and stability? Why did the events in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cambodia and East Timor all occur? Why was Pol Pot not deterred? Why was Galtieri not deterred from invading the Falklands? Why was Saddam Hussein not deterred from invading Kuwait? Why do wars continue to rage, and millions continue to die, in an age of' so-called nuclear deterrence?
The answer is, because the Foreign Secretary and the Government simply do not know what they are talking about. Nuclear weapons have never prevented wars, and they never will. The Government's policy is completely bankrupt.
The argument is especially relevant to Britain's so-called independent deterrent. Trident is designed to have four submarines, each with a potential to hit its targets with the equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshimas. Some may think that that represents something of an overkill, if we are really trying to deal credibly with the threats posed by Colonel Gadaffi and those in other third-world states.
The truth is that Trident was designed to get through the Soviet anti-ballistic missile defences, and still inflict unacceptable damage on Soviet cities. It exists for that purpose; it has no other credible purpose. The end of the Soviet Union has rendered it completely redundant. It is a waste of money, effort and talent in this country; and, if we ever make the mistake of thinking that we can use it, it will represent potentially an even greater waste of human life

across the globe. If a peace dividend is to be obtained anywhere in our defence budget, surely it must be obtained through the scrapping of Trident.
The Government's motion is not only incompetent, inconsistent and irrelevant to Britain's real security needs; it is positively harmful. It threatens world peace, and, by undermining the concept of nuclear non-proliferation in the world today, it threatens Britain's genuine security needs. That is possibly the greatest threat that faces the world at present. The motion should be opposed, and, along with several of my hon. Friends, I shall oppose it in the Lobby.

Mr. Julian Brazier: We have heard a great deal tonight about the potentially awesome consequences of the break-up of the Soviet Union. We have heard much about not only the risk to individual weapon systems but the much more serious risk of widespread proliferation of Soviet nuclear technology. As we listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and a number of other speakers—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—it was difficult not to gain a sense of the seriousness of the potential threat to us.
Most of the other speakers—with the solitary exception of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright)—have focused on Trident. I strongly believe that we should purchase Trident; indeed, I consider it essential that we do so. Rather than discussing Trident, however, I wish to deal with another nuclear issue: the sub-strategic air-launched system known as TASM—the tactical air-to-surface missile.
Incidentally, TASM is of crucial political importance. Whatever fussing or fudging we may hear from the Opposition about Trident, we know for certain that both the main Opposition parties are firmly against TASM, while the Government favour purchasing it and, indeed, will do so.
The hon. Member for Woolwich alluded to the various roles in which TASM could be used—mostly against heavy conventional threats of one kind or another. I wish to focus on its anti-nuclear role, in the light of the potential threat from the third world. An interesting parallel can be drawn with the 1950s, when there was considerable military debate about the respective merits of missiles and aeroplanes as platforms for nuclear weapons. Superficially, it appeared that we could get rid of manned aircraft altogether; but, for a political rather than a military reason, we decided that it was essential for us to maintain an aircraft-launched nuclear capability. Only in that way could we have the political flexibility that we required—a flexibility that can never be provided by missiles, especially submarine-launched missiles.
It is impossible to recall a missile; it is not always possible even to know whether communication can take place with the submarine on which it is based. When it comes to a showdown, the flexibility that is provided by air-launched systems is sometimes essential.
We are speaking of a world of nightmares when we speak of the possible use of a nuclear weapon in anger. Certainly, we are speaking of a much greater disaster—or, rather, of many more deaths—than occurred at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Any modern strategic nuclear weapon would kill far more people. We should not doubt, however, that


we live in a world in which nightmares can, and sadly do, happen. The world has seen the concentration camps, and the killing fields of Cambodia.
The most important duty of any British Government must be to make certain that such nightmares never happen in this country or, as far as possible, in the countries to which we are allied, and which we seek to protect.

Sir Antony Buck: Or in the world as a whole.

Mr. Brazier: Indeed.
The pattern of nuclear proliferation into third-world countries has, I fear, been set by Saddam Hussein. A number of features of his case illustrate our need for a flexible nuclear capability. First, there is the dispersal of sites, which would no doubt be further magnified with dummy sites. Secondly, there is the tendency to use underground sites—sites which, in some instances, would be very difficult to reach with conventional weaponry. Thirdly, there is the tendency to put such nuclear sites into civilian areas, where a civilised country would be very unwilling to strike at them.
Let us suppose that we are faced with a dictator—it does not matter whether he is in Iraq—who has developed a nuclear capability and is threatening the world with it. He need not even use missiles. Let us even suppose—it is by no means impossible—that he has already armed a number of terrorist groups with such weapons, and that one may even have been used. Our intelligence sources tell us where the bulk of his nuclear sites are. How should we respond? Western Europe could not possibly afford the level of conventional capability necessary to cope with such a threat. America might not be willing to help, or it might not be able to.
We might well face a situation within a few years where the only way to prevent a nuclear attack on Britain or some other country may be the threatened, or even actual use, of a number of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy such sites. In such circumstances, it is immediately obvious why Trident, although it is an essential cornerstone of our defence against the still strong Chinese and Russian capabilities, would not be suitable. It lacks the flexibility that I mentioned earlier and it is much more powerful than is necessary. If a site is in a civilian area, one would wish to use the smallest possible bomb to destroy the nuclear installation. Also, there would be the communication difficulty to which I referred earlier. One can send aircraft loaded with bombs or they may be seen on the edge of a dictator's radar screen, acting as a psychological pressure. However, once a missile has been launched, it cannot be recalled.
For all those reasons, it is essential that, as well as Trident, we retain an air-launched sub-strategic system within our armoury in the United Kingdom—it should be western Europe, but only Britain and France are involved now. That is essential for peace in the world.
Some people say—we have heard it again tonight—that, if we spent less money on weaponry, which we are trying to do, we could spend more on schools, hospitals and other services. No other aspect of Government expenditure compares with the importance of preventing a

nuclear attack on this country, and within a few years we may need such systems to prevent such an attack from the third world.
I want to make a political point. Whatever fussing and fudging there is on the Opposition Benches about Trident, there is a clear division of policy between the Conservative Government, who are committed to the NATO policy of developing this system, and both the major Opposition parties, which are determined to scrap it. The Liberal Democrats have put that in their amendment.
It is not only the system that matters, but the willingness, in the last resort, to use it. I believe firmly that there is no surer way to keep this world safe from the actual use of nuclear weapons by the ever-increasing number of countries that are acquiring them than western democracies such as Britain possessing a deterrent that is capable and is backed by a political willingness, in the last resort, to use it. Only the Conservative party, as the British Government, will provide that.

Mr. Bruce George: I welcome this debate. In the last such debate, instigated by the Conservatives just before the recess, they managed to rustle up only seven Back Benchers, and some of those were critical of the Government. It required a three-line Whip to persuade hon. Members today to support the Government. I suspect that, despite the Government's endeavours to whip up feeling against the Labour party, defence will not be a major issue in the next election. The Government's record, contemporary and historically, is far from adequate and, although some Labour Members dislike it, the Labour party has changed its policy in many ways which will satisfy NATO and our allies and, most importantly, potential Labour voters.
We are living in an uncertain world. The euphoria of 1990 has dissipated and a greater sense of realism has emerged. Some people thought that the collapse of the Warsaw pact would bring peace and justice throughout the world. Those who are serious about security issues realise, as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has, that 30 wars are currently taking place and there have been about 150 wars since the second world war, although none was between nuclear states. For those who use the argument about why non-nuclear powers were not deterred by nuclear powers, the answer is simple: nuclear powers have said that they will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. I believe that the possession of nuclear weaons has acted as a deterrent.
I do not like nuclear weapons and neither did Attlee, but he felt that Labour had to have them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) told us that Nye Bevan opposed nuclear weapons, but not that a decade later he was converted. The Labour party's policy is that, for as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, a Labour Government will have them. It is vital to get a handle on proliferation, but I suspect that, even if one buttressed any non-proliferation treaty, there would still be countries that would violate it and, regrettably, some will remain or become nuclear powers.
Over the past 10 years or so, the Tory party has benefited from the Labour party's defence policy. Students of the German language or congnoscenti of commercial television now know the word "schadenfreude", which we are told is the malicious enjoyment of other people's


discomfort. I suspect that the Conservative party wishes to see that continue on defence in the future. Having attended the last debate, I shall coin a more appropriate word—"gazzered" which means to intend to do grievous bodily harm to an adversary but to end up inflicting more harm upon oneself. I suspect that that is what will happen at the next election.
I want to discuss a number of issues, but because of the time constraints I shall discuss only one. Is it true that the Conservative party is the only party with which defence is safe? The Tories have published a scurrilous little document entitled, "Britain's Defence: unsafe in Labour's Hands". In the document they talk about the Labour party being historically in the grip of men such as Ramsay Macdonald. I should like to point out to Conservative central office that he was Prime Minister of a Conservative Government, a national Government, for far longer than he was Prime Minister of a Labour Government. His pacifism endeared him to his colleagues such as Baldwin and Chamberlain.
The so-called party of defence does not deserve that title. I am not saying that I fear for our defence when there is a Conservative Government, but each party has its lapses. We had ours in the 1980s, and it was matched only by the Conservative party's lapses. We are told in the Tory document that the Labour party has an inherent aversion to defence and contempt for it. That is wrong. Is it not ironic that when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in 1951 he said that it was
a curious commentary on British politics that it should fall to a Conservative Government
to have to curtail a military budget to which a socialist Government had committed Britain?
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, whom I admire in many ways, lectured us on dissent. He has been involved in many rebellions, and is the Wat Tyler of the Conservative party. It is no wonder that, having gone through what he has, he stands with his back to the wall. He talked about how awful the Labour party has been and about the Liberal Democrats' intention to cut expenditure. In the Chairman's draft report, which became the Defence Select Committee report on the statement on the Defence Estimates, it said that defence expenditure under this Government had fallen from a peak of 5 per cent. of GDP to about 3·8 per cent. It said that defence expenditure in 1993–94 is estimated to acount for 3·4 per cent. of GDP, the same as or less than it was in 1978–79.
The Conservative party has thus maintained the fiction of improving British defence while expenditure has fallen to a level below that at which they took office in 1979. NATO figures show that the amount spent on defence in terms of GDP in 1974–79 was higher than under the Conservative Administration of 1979–92. Hon. Members can study the NATO figures if they disbelieve me. Conservative party policy has meant a smaller proportion of GDP spent on defence. Our Navy has been cut to its smallest size ever, our Army is about to be cut to its lowest levels since the Crimean war, and I have documents on the collapse of the merchant marine. They show that in 1981 United Kingdom registered shipping had 37·7 million deadweight tonnes but that it now has 3·7 million tonnes. That is a disaster.
I give a brief list of the Tories' record on defence. The reliance on nuclear weapons has been to the detriment of conventional defence. To cut the Army to 116,000 is to make it dangerously small. We now have the smallest

number of submarines ever; nor do we seem to build them very well, and as I said, there has been a dangerous decline in the merchant marine. There are inadequate airborne warning and communication system offset arrangements and a shared responsibility for the catastrophe of Nimrod.
We have seen procurement foul-ups by the score—the vertical-launch Sea Wolf followed by the Challenger, the seabed operational vessel. There was a delay in replacing Fearless and Intrepid, and a prodigious collapse of the defence industrial base. The checklist goes on and on. There was the messy path of regimental reorganisation. The Conservative party has not a clue what to do with decommissioned nuclear submarines, and morale in the forces is very low. We were lucky to get away with the Gulf in view of Government policies in the 1980s.
We have seen that the Conservative party has little credibility in saying that it is the party of defence, but perhaps it is better on nuclear weapons. Let us consider the record. When Attlee left office, we had an atomic programme which was almost exclusively British. Under the Tories, we saw reliance on the V-bomber force. That was a disaster, because it became obsolescent. The Conservative party then decided on Blue Streak and Blue Steel, all of which were abandoned.
A decade after his party took office, Harold Macmillan was reduced to going to Nassau to plead with Kennedy to be given an off-the-shelf purchase in the form of Polaris. Sorensen, the biographer of Kennedy, said that Macmillan told Kennedy that he was like a ship which looked buoyant but was apt to sink: did Kennedy want to live with the consequences of sinking him? He warned that the collapse of his Government on that issue would bring to power a more anti-American, more neutralist group from either party. That is what we were reduced to. Sorensen said that Kennedy asked whether Macmillan would like to share expenditure on Skybolt but was told, "No thank you, sir." He asked whether he would like Hound Dog but was told "No, we want Polaris." Subsequently, we got a nuclear system on which we are dependent.
We hear talk of the fourth Trident submarine, but let us remember the fifth Polaris submarine which, when the Tories left office, was only an option. When the Tories came to office again in 1970, they had the opportunity to build the fifth Polaris submarine that they are supposed to have wanted, but they declined to do so. It is possible to manage with three Tridents; I should prefer four but the Labour party has said that when it takes office it will consider how much has been spent and how much is contractually committed and then decide, bearing in mind the paramount importance of seeking to control proliferation. Our record——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Whether the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) which renounces the use of nuclear weapons and seeks to cancel Trident
substituting it by a process of arms conversion"—
whatever that means—is the true position of the Labour party remains open to doubt even after this afternoon's debate. It is also a matter for political argument whether it makes common sense, and the electors will be called to judge, whatever the result in the Division this evening.
I have read the official Opposition's amendment several times. I am perhaps intellectually less astute than some hon. Members, but I cannot make head or tail of it. We heard very little about it from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but it might have helped us to understand his position if, in discussing it, he had mentioned nuclear defence. It would have helped to have those two words in the amendment so that we should know precisely what was the official Opposition's position.
I do not believe that now is the time to let down our guard; nor do I think that the electorate believe that it is time, and they will not be convinced by the Opposition's stance today. This is a vital issue. If we do not defend our country adequately at a time of international unrest, and if a madman obtains a weapon that we cannot counter with our own, the arguments about the economy, education and health are all for the birds. Defence must be the prime issue facing us at the general election. It is right that we should set out out not only for Members of Parliament but for the world outside where each party stands on the subject.
I and other hon. Members have referred to international uncertainty. Can anyone doubt that, if Saddam had not been stopped in his tracks, he would by now have had a nuclear capability which would have been a threat to us? Can anyone doubt that Libya takes no notice of what we in the west do or think? However, it will take note of how strong our guard is. Indeed, where would the threat from the rickety empires which were together formerly called the Soviet Union be if we had no nuclear arms?
The answer must lie in trying to prevent further proliferation of nuclear arms. The 1968 treaty was a start, but not all countries with nuclear arms have signed it, and many of those who have signed have their own nuclear capability in any case. Another problem is that the treaty does not cover nuclear missiles. It deals with technology, but there are no verifiable powers of inspection. There are now opportunities under the new world order to ensure that, together in friendship, countries can sign a new non-proliferation treaty covering nuclear missiles and verifiable powers of inspection.
We have been told today that there are about 27,000—or perhaps more—nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. They are in danger of being sold to other third world countries, so co-operation is absolutely vital. The building up of unnecessary arsenals by half the world should no longer be a part of international strategy.
This country has enormous good will towards other countries. We may disagree with their leaders, but there is hardly one country that we do not wish well. The problem is that many of those countries do not believe that we have that good will, and consequently, it is vital that we sit around the conference table and convince one another of our good will and of our peaceful intentions.
Since the breakdown of the east-west confrontation, there is an opportunity for a new reality among nations. In the meantime, our nuclear programme must continue, with, I believe, our first Trident to be launched later this year and a fourth boat available in the late 1990s. Trident must always be available and on patrol. An aggressor must know that a nuclear attack would produce unacceptable

retaliation. Polaris has kept the peace for us for 30 years and Trident will do so for the next 30 years. We have never used nuclear weapons in those 30 years.
Terrible conflicts have taken place in the Falklands, in Iraq and elsewhere, but we have never threatened to use nuclear weapons, although some Opposition Members thought at the time that there was a danger that we might use them. The weapons have been there in reserve, and that is the whole point. An aggressor has always known that even a limited attack would be met by unacceptable retaliation.
It has been nail-biting stuff over the years. I sat through the debates in the House on the Falklands, and we all sat throught the debates on the Gulf. We have lived through difficult times, yet we never had to use the weapons that we possess. Nuclear weapons have kept world peace, apart from conflagrations such as those I have mentioned, over almost the past 50 years. In turn, we must now reduce our nuclear weapons, and other countries must reduce theirs. It is right to propose that half the present arsenal will go in the next 10 years, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned. It is right that all sub-strategic nuclear weapons should soon be reduced to one tenth of what they are now.
Our policies are clear. We believe that we should reduce the number of warheads, and press for greater and more effective non-proliferation agreements, with verification. Above all, we should keep up our guard at a time of great and worrying uncertainty, because the future of our country depends on it.

Mr. Dick Douglas: This has been an interesting debate, because we have heard speeches from Conservative Members and especially from Labour Members which have illustrated the fact that parts of the Labour party which were threatened with extinction still exist. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an interesting speech and the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is a member of the same party, made a speech that was diametrically opposed to it. There is no harm in that, especially if hon. Members accept what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said—that he would make it clear to his electorate where he stood on the issue. That is an honourable position.
I am concerned about the falsity of the debate. The real situation in the disintegrating Soviet Union has not been addressed. What was in place in the Soviet Union for 40 years? There was no threat then of a disintegrating command and control structure. There was clear subordination, by dictatorial means, to the political will of the communist party. As others have said, the army in the Soviet Union was loyal because the communist party permeated it. The army had to obey the political will. That system has suffered a severe shock and we are concerned about what is now in place.
Can the permissible action links be recreated? What are the controls over strategic nuclear weapons? More importantly, what are the controls over sub-strategic, especially battlefield, nuclear weapons? People who have studied the question know that, although there are permissible action links and coding, no sensible military command structure would allow the weaponry and the warheads, especially battlefield weapons, to be under


single control. There are extreme dangers in relation to strategic weapons, but time does not permit a discussion about that.
Surely no one suggests that, to make us feel safe in the west, we should go back to a recreation of the monolithic hegemony of the Soviet Union. We must deal with the situation that exists. What is the position on our own strategic deterrent? There has been little mention of the so-called "four-boat" Polaris submarine fleet. It is claimed that we need four boats, although there is some doubt about whether the Labour party means three or four. The current position of both the Tory party and the Labour party on the possession of a strategic deterrent is meaningless in relation to the real issues of defence.
All intelligent observers admit that the United Kingdom does not have a viable four-boat Polaris fleet. The expectation is that, later this year, SSBN Revenge will go into Rosyth—the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement may contradict me if he wishes—to be paid off and decommissioned. Everyone in Dunfermline says that that is the expectation. The other known fact is that SSBN Renown is in Rosyth at present and its refit cycle has been delayed. By the end of the year, there will be two boats out of the possible four-boat Polaris fleet. We all know that all four boats have severe problems with reactors. Whom are the Government kidding and whom are the Opposition kidding about the possession of a viable deterrent?
An incoming Labour Government could not put the Trident fleet into the bargaining because it does not exist, with either three or four boats. We are waiting for the launch of the first Vanguard class boat. A Labour Government would be able to put in only an obsolescent, if not obsolete, Polaris fleet. That may have some persuasive force in relation to Russia, the Ukraine or whoever is in possession of strategic weapons in the new Soviet system, but we cannot kid the people that there is a viable four-boat fleet.
On what are we embarking by continuing to give the impression that possession of nuclear weapons is a cheap military virility symbol? The United Kingdom invites copycat reactions from other states which will strive to become nuclear powers. The best example that the United Kingdom can give the world is to cancel the Trident programme and to devote the resources so saved to far more useful purposes. That is the policy of the Scottish National party which we will put forward in the coming general election campaign, when it will command the support of the people of Scotland. That policy has commanded the support not only of Scottish National party conferences but of repeated conferences of the Labour party in Scotland.
I have mentioned the command and control position that existed in the Soviet Union, although I have not described it in detail. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned the secrecy involved in nuclear weapons. We are concerned about the command and control structure that was in place in the Soviet Union. What is our own command and control structure? What is that of the United States? Do we have any real information about that? If we ask questions about what is happening to the Drell committee report, and about the investigations into the safety of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in the United Kingdom, a great wall of secrecy engulfs us. If

we ask questions about the composition of certain committees and about the terms of reference, a great wall of secrecy comes up.
Would anyone try to kid us that in the United States, for example, President Bush, carrying his little box, is the sole repository of the power to release the United States strategic deterrent? Of course there are variations in the command and control structure.
Let us consider the "aid" that we are offering the Soviet Union. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, said that $400 million of aid was being offered by the United States Senate to the Soviet Union. And to do what? To go to the emerging republics and say, "We will assist you in dismantling your nuclear weapons as you do not know how to do it. Remove all your secrecy and we will come in and help you." That concept is to be put before NATO and the United Nations. The British are in effect saying to the republics, "You must dismantle your nuclear weapons while we modernise ours. Not only do we want a four-boat Trident fleet; we want a tactical air-to-surface missile as well." If the emerging republics in the disintegrating Soviet Union buy that, they are very naive, but I do not expect that they will.
I recognise that these serious matters must be dealt with in a serious way, and it is a serious proposition that we are putting forward. The best suggestion, in the interests of the United Kingdom, and of Scotland, in particular, is to renounce the deterrent now, and now is a good time to do it because Polaris is obsolescent—indeed, obsolete.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is a very fair man. Last Friday, he and I attended a meeting in Edinburgh—I do not think that I am transgressing any rule of secrecy—at which Sir Robert Easton explained the parlous position in which Yarrow would be if it did not immediately get an order. Earlier, we were given a guarantee, as I interpreted it, by a Labour Front-Bench spokesman that Labour would secure employment at Barrow. May we have a similar guarantee that the Labour party, if elected, will secure employment at Yarrow by placing orders for type 23s or their equivalent there?

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, albeit, as is often my habit, towards the tail end of the debate.
I begin by saying that I have a natural antipathy to the amount of expenditure that is necessary to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. The reason for that is that I feel very strongly that Governments should never spend money on something that is not used—let alone something that is designed never to be used.
The prospect of spending 2 per cent., and perhaps 3 per cent., of our entire defence budget on a system that we all hope and pray will never be used sticks in my gullet. In other circumstances, the money could and should be spent on equipment and manpower that have a more serviceable purpose. Unfortunately, however, the circumstances in which that might be possible are not at hand.
Many hon. Members have referred to the dangers posed to this country and others by the break-up of the old world order with its monolithic bloc system, and particularly by the break-up of the Soviet Union. The danger of there being scientists and weapons for sale


makes Britain's possession of an independent nuclear deterrent more essential than ever. I regret that, because, as I said, I regret the element of expenditure that is necessary. I believe that these uncertain times dictate that we must continue to have an effective independent deterrent, and it has to be effective.
In one respect, that is more necessary now than ever before. In the past, in our adversary, the Soviet Union, we had an opponent who, as many of us were well aware, respected our ability to respond to nuclear attack. I believe that there is a possibility, in the not too distant future, of our facing potential opponents—tyrants, despots, fundamentalists perhaps—who are quite happy with the idea of using weapons of mass destruction in a way with which even the Soviet Union command structure would not have been happy.
Such Governments may have already used weapons of mass destruction on their own people. I refer, for example, to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Those hon. Members who saw Sunday night's BBC "Everyman" programme will realise just how horrific that regime has been in the past three years. We may have to respond to nuclear blackmail from a state which has no compunction about using a weapon of mass destruction and which has used it on its own people.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) made a very good point when he said that it was not simply a matter of there being one Islamic bomb: there might be several Islamic bombs, none of them in the hands of a particularly stable or peace-loving Government. I therefore agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend in justifying the level of nuclear deterrence which the Government have defended and paid for and which is to continue.
Let me say something about the position held by the Liberal Democrats, as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who questioned the necessity for Britain to have an independently credible nuclear force. I believe strongly that Britain needs to be part of an alternative centre of decision taking on nuclear matters. I can readily foresee a situation in which America withdraws sufficiently from Europe—or has other preoccupations—and no longer feels that it has to provide an intimate nuclear umbrella for Europe.
I should not be happy explaining to my constituents that we were prepared to leave that responsibility in the hands of the French, because I do not believe that their position outside NATO gives them that integration of command structure and that joint responsibilty that we have had in this country within the NATO structure. That argument alone puts to bed the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East about the need for independence.
The Labour party's equivocation on the matter is transparent. It is not enough for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen simply to say that they differ on the number of boats or that they would never use the weapons but think we ought to have them if other people have them. My hon. Friends and I find it extremely worrying that, in times such as these, with such danger and division all over the world, the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party in their recent keynote policy speeches made not a single mention

either of Britain's defence and nuclear defence or of the larger threat posed by nuclear proliferation in the middle east and as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union.
I hope that the Labour party's spokesman will reassure Conservative Members who feel that the two parties have common ground that this is an Opposition priority and not a political matter for point scoring. We should like to hear that, in spite of its omission from keynote speeches, this is very much a Labour party priority. Nobody doubts the Opposition's patriotism or its commitment; it is a question of priorities, and priorities have financial implications. In the past, there has been uncertainty about the Labour party's commitment to nuclear defence, so it is reasonable for us, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, to expect reassurance on this matter.
I support the Government motion, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The problem about the speech of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), like the speeches of many of his colleagues, is that it was made in the wrong decade. There has been reference to Sunday's programme about the dreadful massacre of the Kurds. At that time, the British Government had a presence in Baghdad, in the shape of the present Secretary of State for Social Security. His purpose in going there was to sell arms to Saddam Hussein, and he was very successful. As has been said, we have now discovered that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons programme. One Conservative Member said that we had stopped Saddam Hussein in his tracks. We did not stop him in his tracks; we stopped him in our tracks. The tank tracks that he was using were British, and he had a full range of other equipment.
There has been a move among Conservative Members to have the IAEA safeguards strengthened. Conservatives are slow learners. In April 1990, a question relating to precisely that matter was placed on the Order Paper. The reason for the desire to strengthen nuclear safeguards was that Iraq had a nuclear weapons programme. What was the Government's response to that suggestion from the Opposition? They said that they would not seek to have the IAEA safeguards strengthened, and they asked the Opposition whether they were aware that Iraq was a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and, as such, had undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons. The Government said that they expected Iraq to abide by its international obligations. A few months later the Iraqis took part in the invasion.
When the Kurds were massacred, hon. Members were denied the chance to table questions about Saddam Hussein's programme, in exactly the same way as, in 1939, Members of Parliament were prevented from criticising Adolf Hitler because he was the head of a friendly state. A great many lessons emerged from the Gulf war, but many of them have not been learnt. One of them is that conventional arms, as used in the Gulf war, are as destructive as weapons of mass destruction.
On 30 January, there were 28 B52s over Iraq and Kuwait, and they dropped enough cluster bombs—small, three-pound bombs—to destroy an area one fifth the size of Wales. The main lesson of the Gulf war is that there has been an escalation in conventional weaponry. I refer, for


example, to cluster bombs and to multiple-launch rocket systems, where the escalation has given rise to as much danger as arises from weapons of mass destruction.
There is a link missing from the logic of the Government's case. They say that we must keep nuclear weapons, but they do not relate that assertion in any way to the present crisis. The most compelling metaphor about politics is that we live in a saucer-shaped world. We are obsessed by our own affairs. The rim of the saucer, over which no one can see, is the date of the next general election. This is all about general elections. But those who look over the rim of the saucer see a nuclear abyss more threatening than any we have ever known.
In the early 1980s, there was a strong case for British unilateral disarmament. At that time there were two men with their fingers on the nuclear button. One of them—Andropov—was on a life-support machine; the other was Ronald Reagan. One of them was dead from the neck down; the other was dead from the neck up. That was a great peril to the world.

We now have a worse threat. There are several problems that have not been addressed. No Conservative Member has attempted to put forward any practical ideas. None has mentioned the reasons for the likely escalation. Let me list the countries that possess ballistic missiles: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, Italy, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Syria and Yemen. How many of those countries, knowing that Britain is having three or four votes on this matter, will be thinking tonight that they ought to make sure that they have nuclear weapons to go with their ballistic weapons?
The Government's case is irrelevant. Because of nationalism and fear, the countries which I just mentioned want nuclear weapons. If one starts at the Pacific coast and draws a line through Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, the Gulf, Israel and north Africa, one goes through a number of countries, every one of which is frightened of its neighbours. Many of them, indeed, are frightened of all their neighbours.
In respect of disarmament one interesting thing has happened in the past few months. I refer to the attitude of the United States to the great threat of the emergence of North Korea as a new nuclear power. Next on the list is Algeria, and after that Iran. What did the United States do to discourage North Korea—a frightened country feeling threatened after the loss of all its friends in the communist bloc—from going full scale for nuclear weapons? It unilaterally disarmed South Korea.
The Government's argument has no logic, no meaning. Conservative Members are simply trying to score political points, as they attempted last week, futilely, to scare people about taxes. Next week they will probably use the racial card, and the week after that the trade union bogey. Among Government Members there is culpable ignorance of what is happening in the world. They have failed to provide answers to questions about the very serious threat of proliferation.
There are terrible problems in the old Soviet Union. That is a real issue that has broken through in the debate. What the Government are putting forward is false. Nuclear technology is now half a century old. There is no secret about the technology itself. It has been denied to many nations, but in that regard there has been only

partial success. We know that it is available. In the end, the only answer is political persuasion. In the long run, that will form the basis of international non-proliferation policy. We see on the Government side a group of confused, old cold war warriors without a clue about how to deal with the present situation, and no idea how to deal with the new threat. They are raking coals that are long dead.

Sir Alan Glyn: These issues are certainly the most important that I have witnessed since I came to the House more than 30 years ago. They represent an unforeseen danger far greater than that of the Falklands or the Gulf war. I strongly support the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I regard four Tridents as essential in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves. I support my right hon. Friend's policy for two reasons—the first is history and the second is the present situation. After all, for 40 years peace in Europe has been kept because of the possession of Polaris by the allies. An enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons has been possessed by the Soviet Union. I fear that if those weapons were loosed, the whole world would be destroyed. That is the lesson that we must learn. Moreover, the Soviet Union was controlled by one man rather than 20 people as is the case now.
There was rightly jubilation when Mr. Gorbachev overthrew a regime which was thoroughly repugnant to us all, but he himself was overthrown by Yeltsin. How long will Yeltsin last? Already, the army is getting restless. As my right hon. Friend said, the Soviet army is in disarray, with a multitude of nations and with dissatisfaction at being disarmed, indeed demobilised, and discipline is undermined. There is an undisciplined force under Yeltsin. How can he control what happens not only in his own country but in the parts of the Soviet Union that have been split? The Soviet Union has broken up into component parts, all of which have atomic weapons. Those areas are also impoverished. Is it likely that those weapons will be used against or sold to other countries for grain and other food? We are up against a serious situation. There are bankrupt states, and they like to flog some of their atomic secrets to other countries.
There is a danger of the union of Muslim states in the former Soviet Union combining with states such as Libya, Algeria, and so on, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, and forming a fundamentalist group or, alternatively, fighting among themselves and using atomic weapons. We are in a very dangerous position. If Muslim countries such as Iran and Iraq and Soviet Muslim countries formed a super-Muslim federation, rather than a commonwealth of independent states, we would again be in great difficulty. Who could possibly control such forces? Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. There is also the matter of countries such as Israel, which also have nuclear weapons. The present uncertainties demand that we have a strong and united front.
It is a great sadness to me—I shall be leaving the House at the end of this Session—that, on this matter, we cannot have a bipartisan policy such as we had in the war. The dangers are so awful that they could affect our children. I am terrified that everything will go up in smoke.
We must remain a strong country. We must remain powerful and be able to resist any aggression. To do that,


we must do the things that were suggested by my right hon. Friend. But that is not enough. To protect ourselves, we must have force to resist. We must look further ahead. We owe an obligation not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world. We must be able to lead in the control and detection of missiles. How we do that I do not know, but do it we must. If we do not, at some time or other somebody will loose a nuclear weapon. Those are the real dangers that face this country.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to chair the forthcoming Security Council meeting. I do not know how far he will get. I do not know to what extent we can control other countries. Even the detection of missiles could be difficult. If they are deeply hidden, modern technology may not detect them. Those are the ghastly problems that we face. If the Security Council itself cannot do that, we have to use every method and organisation that we can to persuade the rest of the world that it is no use having atomic weapons, because they will destroy either themselves or the world. But it will be extremely difficult to persuade them.
It is most important to locate weapons and to have a system of international inspection and, eventually, international demobilisation. We cannot live in a world in which missiles are under no control. I do not believe that even Russia will be able to control enormous stocks of weapons. I was alarmed by the figures relating to the quantity of weapons floating about in the world. That is why I said that this is one of the most dangerous situations that I have seen for more than 30 years.
We have always known of the Russian danger. Thanks to American technology, we know roughly how many weapons Russia has. At least we knew that we had someone with whom we could negotiate, but now there is nobody. With perhaps 50 or 60 countries holding such weapons, we must find some way of making sure that those weapons are not loosed off by irresponsible people. I do not know how we can do that. The Security Council will try, but we must go further to ensure the security not only of this country, but of the world. It is a frightening situation.
Our primary duty is to be effective and to ensure that we are adequately defended. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carefully outlined two issues. The first related to the dangers of proliferation and of the results of the break-up of the Soviet Union. He also laid down a firm defence policy, which included four Trident submarines. If that policy is followed, I am sure that we shall be able to defend ourselves. However, it is not enough simply to defend ourselves—we must defend the rest of the world, because if the rest of the world attacks us or if various countries attack one another, the effect would be——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but he has had the 10 minutes that he is allowed under the Standing Order.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, even so late in the debate. I understand that, by agreement, the two Front-Bench spokesmen intend to start their replies at 9.10 pm. I deeply regret that, because I should have thought that they could have allowed sufficient time to

enable my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and myself to speak for 10 minutes each. I shall have to shorten my speech to enable my hon. Friend to speak. Having been present throughout the debate and tabled an amendment to the motion, which my hon. Friend has supported, I believe that we should at least have an opportunity to put our point of view to the House.
I am the author of an amendment to the Government's motion. I tabled my amendment because I believe that the Government's attitude to nuclear weapons is, frankly, barking mad. When the Secretary of State made it clear earlier that he was refusing either to confirm or to deny that he is prepared to use nuclear weapons, I thought, "What sort of world does he live in? Has he visited Hiroshima to see the actual effects of using nuclear weapons?" The right hon. Gentleman should understand that, once a nuclear weapon is fired, it murders, kills, maims and destroys those on whom it is targeted, those under its flight path, and those who fired it. People are dying of cancers across northern Europe because of what was, in effect, a minor explosion at Chernobyl. That is an example of what happens when a nuclear explosion takes place. The idea that in 1992 we should be seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons is abhorrent.
Many people across the world have sought to oppose the use of nuclear weapons. Many brave people, including scientists, who developed nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered systems in the past now recognise their dangers. Just before Christmas, I took part in a demonstration in Kensington High street, opposite the Israeli embassy. We were there to protest about the continued imprisonment of Mordecai Vannunu, a man whom I believe to be very brave. He spoke out about the development of nuclear weapons in Israel. For his pains, he has been given a prison sentence of 18 years, of which he has served at least two years in solitary confinement with a bright light on in his cell all the time. That is a mind-bending experience, as it was intended to be. When our Government's observers attend the middle east peace talks, I hope that they will raise the question of Mordecai Vannunu, his bravery and the need for his release.
At the start of the new year, we have seen the new world order revealed for exactly what it is. The 5,000 nuclear warheads of the United States that used to be targeted on Moscow, Berlin, Belgrade and many other eastern European capitals have been swivelled round and are now targeted on unspecified cities and military installations in the third world. The new world order appears to be one in which the northern industrial nations are getting together to ensure that the world's economic inequalities continue.
We have come to the end of the cold war period, during which the Soviet Union and the United States were engaged in an arms race which wrecked the economy of the Soviet Union and brought it to its knees. It also impoverished the rest of the world, with the United States becoming the world's biggest debtor as it paid for its own arms race. Yet, since 1945, about 20 million people have died in wars around the world, so where is the deterrent in that?
The brutality of those wars is that they have been wars by proxy and about injustice. What was the Vietnam war about other than the Vietnamese people waging a war of national liberation? What was the war in central America about other than being against the oligarchies in El
Salvador and the Contra guerrillas seeking to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua? What are the other wars in the world about, other than instability and inequality?
Tomorrow we shall "celebrate"—if that is the right word—the start of the Gulf war. It ill becomes Conservative Members to talk about the brutality of Saddam Hussein and of the Baathist regime in Iraq when the Government have refused to reveal how much of the billions of pounds' worth of export credit guarantees given to Saddam Hussein and his regime have been lost to the British taxpayer. The Conservative Government armed Saddam Hussein to the teeth. I went to Iraq this August and I saw the destruction in Kurdistan. It did not all happen during the uprising or during the Gulf war. It happened when our Government were buddy-buddy with Saddam Hussein and the Secretary of State was there selling information and materials to him.
In this world, brutally divided between north and south and between rich and poor, in which a billion people are on the point of starvation and serious poverty, the British Government's solution is to spend £23 billion on the Trident missile system, which breaks the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and to continue an annual defence expenditure of about £24 billion. And what is NATO's solution? Instead of winding itself up, as it should, it turns itself into the political police force of the rest of the world—and the European Community seems to me to be trying to follow in the same direction.
Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent. They are inherently dangerous and unstable. We should say honestly that now is the time to get rid of all nuclear weapons and nuclear bases. Now is the time for massive nuclear disarmament. Now is the time to take stock of the situation in which the world finds itself. That situation is not a pretty sight. It is time for us to do something to redress the imbalance in the world. The imbalance between north and south, the plight of starving children in Africa and India, and the debt crisis that ravages Latin America cannot be solved so long as the west maintains its massive expenditure on arms and supports economic inequality in the world.
I hope that the issues that we have discussed today will feature in the general election campaign. I have been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since I was 15 and I intend to continue being a member. I have never supported nuclear weapons, and I never will. I ask any of my hon. Friends who believe that there are electoral benefits in supporting the principle of maintaining nuclear weapons to look at the dole queues in Britain, the crumbling schools and hospitals and the inequalities in the world, and to see that there is a solution which involves arms conversion, turning swords into ploughshares and turning away from nuclear madness towards a saner, freer and more democratic world. That is impossible if we maintain nuclear weapons.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for giving me four minutes—now three minutes—to solve the problems of the world. I am sure that I can do a better job in three minutes than the Government have done in 12 years.
When Conservative Members describe weapons of death and destruction, they become positively orgasmic. 

Looking at them, those are probably the only orgasms that they are ever likely to have. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) used to tremble with excitement at the thought of being able to press the nuclear button. That frightened me, and it should have frightened every other sane person in the world. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear earlier that he was not prepared to press the nuclear button.
Conservative Members have made great play of the differences of opinion within the Labour party. I, too, am a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I have been a member since the late 1960s, and I remain so to this day. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I shall make that clear in my election manifesto in Newham, North-West. I do not expect any difficulties when it comes to that election. I shall lay my cards honestly and openly before the electorate, and I shall make arguments in my election campaign that will convince people that my stance is worthy and worth voting for.
I listened to the Secretary of State for Defence, who never fails to fail to rise to the occasion. He had an opportunity to talk about the momentous events in the world and about how Britain could perhaps take a lead. After a few references to that, he reduced his arguments to petty party political mud slinging. The Conservative party knows that it is on a losing streak. It knows that it is done for, come the general election. So, of course, all the smears come out, supported by the fascist loonies on the Daily Mail,the Daily Expressand The Sun.They will smear the Labour party, but I do not think that the people of this country will be deceived. They can see through the bankrupt arguments of a bankrupt Government.
If the Secretary of State really wanted to do something about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the crumbling eastern empire—and the real possibility, I accept that, of those leaking out and going to countries which are prepared to buy the hardware and the technology—instead of saying that we would give them advice on what to do, he should have said that we would help them by giving them hard currency in exchange for dismantling those nuclear weapons.
The Government should tell the 100,000 or so nuclear scientists in the former Soviet Union that we will give them jobs. Of course, we have to give jobs to a lot of ordinary people over here, but we could say that in Europe we will give them jobs; we will give them jobs in their own country by helping them to use their great skills in civilian production, so that the people of the east can get the advantages that they now want from democracy. Those are the arguments that the Secretary of State should have put before us, not the petty party squabbling that he has thrown at us in a squalid attempt to win a few votes.
The best defended country is a country which unites its people, a country which can deal with problems of unemployment and homelessness and poverty. A country which can deal with those things is a country well defended. This country, under the present Government, is not defended at all.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: This is the fourth opportunity that we have had to discuss these matters since October. We had the defence estimates debate when


the House resumed, we had the Loyal Address, we had the nuclear defence debate on 22 November, and now we have today's debate.
The only justification for tonight's debate is the reality of the collapse of the USSR, although I suppose that another would be an attempt by the Government Whips Office to get a few more Conservative Members to stand up and defend the Government's nuclear policy. On 22 November, as I recall, only three Back Benchers were dragged into the Chamber to sit alongside the Secretary of State and his colleague. Certainly, the Secretary of State's remarks today are the same stale mixture of bluster and abuse that we have come to know as a substitute for any Government defence policy.
Today we have had the opportunity to reassess the significance of events since the House rose. We can see the emergence today of four independent states on the territory of the former Soviet Union—independent states with substantial strategic nuclear systems in their territories, as well as an unknown number of states with tactical nuclear weapons and chemical weapons on their soil. Each one of those states is different in its nuclear capability and in the political, social, cultural and geographical factors that might influence its intentions.
This is the argument and the rationale for recognition of the need for a diplomatic as well as a military response to this complex set of security problems. Just as the definition of threat implies not only the capability but the intent, so deterrence demands not only the ability to respond but the willingness to seek non-military solutions to apparently intractable security problems. Following the famous Hoftihouse meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, the United States and the then Soviet Union established that it was possible to construct an arms control and disarmament regime which could reduce and in some instances eliminate elements of the world's nuclear arsenal.
The debate so far over the break-up of the Soviet Union has tended to ignore the tactical nuclear and chemical weapons that were deployed widely throughout Soviet territory. The existence of those weapons, the uncertainty about their command and control system, the confusion over the political institutions and the authorities responsible for them, the attraction of selling off even small amounts of those nuclear and chemical arsenals, and the dangers of the brain drain of the technologists are all present today.
Those are some of the new risks which confront not only Britain and NATO but all states. Concerns about proliferation have been expressed by Members of all parties today. Proliferation is no longer the old problem of new weapons falling into the hands of old-established states with old-established problems and disputes. The reverse is now true. Old weapons are falling into the hands of newly established states with new and little-known problems and disputes.
In the face of all this, it is not enough for the Prime Minister to claim credit for inviting President Yeltsin for a comfort stop on his way to New York. There has to be a framework to incorporate all the CIS states which will permit the implementation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty and enable that treaty to be readjusted to take account of the new military districts which will have been created as a consequence of the military organization

within the former Soviet Union. Rapid steps must also be taken to ensure that the START reductions can be carried out.
The reduction in the nuclear arsenal could be carried out either by a suitably monitored central authority, probably Russia, or through the provision of facilities to the other states, such as the Ukraine, first to disable and then to dispose of unwanted weapons. There is a debate about whether the nuclear weapons in the Commonwealth of Independent States should be disabled immediately and then disposed of at a later date, or whether they should be disposed of without first disabling them. In that process we could make use of the skills of Ukrainian, Russian and other scientists.
In November last year we raised this question and put it on the agenda. So far, it has met with studied indifference on the part of the Government. Two months have passed. Anyone with any sense of history or of what was taking place in the former Soviet Union would have known and anticipated what the probabilities were—that the union would break up, that Pandora's box would be opened, and that myriad problems would emerge. The Government should have known that the countries with expertise, with the diplomatic, technical and political skills which because of its totalitarian character the Soviet Union suppressed for generations, would have to deal with the problem.
This is the complaint that we make about the Government: they come to the problem purely and simply in the interests of a general election, to try to divert attention from the horrendous economic and social problems that twelve and a half years of Thatcherism and Majorism have created in this country. They are more interested in trying to foment an artificial debate in the House about security matters than in dealing with the real problems of the economy and of the social fabric of this country.
The debate is artificial because speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected very similar concern about the problems. There has been little difference in the prescriptions for how to deal with the problem of proliferation, the uncertainties of nuclear control and our difficulties as a nuclear power in responding to those challenges.
We are not talking only about a massive strategic arsenal. In some respects, that is the easiest problem. That arsenal is well documented and reported. It has been discussed for a number of years, through the long days of the START process and before. We know the size of the arsenal, and we know roughly where the weapons are. What we are not sure about is the size and composition of the massive inventory of tactical nuclear weapons and warheads. Various estimates have been made today, and 16,000 is probably the agreed figure. We are concerned about the uncertainty on the size, the content and the location of the arsenals. Reciprocal agreements were made between the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce the arsenals. When they were announced at the end of September, it was explicit that there were to be no verification procedures because no one knew where all the weapons were or was confident that their removal and disposal could be adequately inspected and verified.
It was significant that the agreement was a product of the new trust which had grown up between the Soviet Union and the United States. It was an expression of that trust that they could take each other's word that they


would use their best endeavours to get rid of the tactical nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. The problem has been blown back on us because trust no longer exists, and we do not know where the weapons are, who is responsible for them and who eventually is capable of dismantling them.
We require an agreement of the Commonwealth of Independent States for the collection and disposal of the weapons. It is well known that, as yet, there are insufficient facilities for the storage in Russia prior to disposal. It is not too much to ask that the highest priority is given to the matter. If necessary, we could surely provide the means whereby the weapons could be stored, and enter into agreements to ensure that they would be protected. The military required to do that should be paid, with payment based on international agreement between the G7 states, the members of NATO and the members of the European Community. Those countries could afford to assist, and it is as much in their interest as in the interests of the people of the Commonwealth of Independent States that the weapons are taken care of properly.
The ability to deal with those weapons of mass destruction is completely unaffected by the existence or otherwise of British nuclear weapons. The self-satisfied breast beating of Tory Ministers is a matter of total indifference to those members of the Russian military and to the former Soviet scientists who now have nothing to sell but their nuclear materials and expertise, since their labour is no longer a marketable skill in post-Communist society.
Those are the problems which confront us. It is incumbent upon the remaining four original, permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, China, France and Britain—to assert the authority of the Security Council and the United Nations. That is where we can put items on the agenda soon. Because of the British chairmanship of the Security Council, and the leadership role which that affords us in the short term, we can ensure the support of countries which hitherto have not paid their dues to the United Nations and which have not supported institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency. We can ensure that such institutions get the financial support and political backing which will not only enable them to carry out their monitoring work and expand their activities but will provide staff to address the problems which lie at the heart of the new peace process.
If we have to work on the process of non-proliferation and also ensure that the sources of dispute between potential proliferators are diminished, we can do so only with a UN secretariat which is capable of handling the problems. If we want to give support to the new Secretary General of the United Nations, the first thing that we must do is to make sure that the organisation that he is inheriting has the appropriate funds and financial support to address the tasks of greatest importance.
We must set in place quickly a framework to stop the leakage of nuclear skills and equipment to the neo-nuclear powers. It is a far higher priority to prevent them from obtaining the means to blackmail us than to spend vast sums of money on as yet untried weaponry which might or might not deter a pre-emptive strike. Once agreement is reached on the implementation of the START treaty. the United States and Russia should be encouraged to go even further. People such as former Defence Secretary Robert

McNamara said that it would be possible to reduce levels to as low as 1,000 warheads in the United States and probably in Russia.
Those figures have not been plucked out of the air, but are within the capability of negotiators and the disposal process if we are prepared to give it the support and backing that it deserves. People of the distinction of Robert McNamara have stated time and again that we should seek the peaceful route towards a better world rather than continuing with needless and unnecessary stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
Much has been said today about the ability to deter mad dictators and fanatics. We must not forget that the war in the Gulf started almost 12 months ago. No one should be persuaded that the lethality and accuracy of conventional weapons will not be enough to deter conventional military action by third-world powers. The Government have first-hand evidence of the effectiveness of our troops and forces in the Gulf. We have seen the disastrous and dreadful consequences of conventional weapons. If anyone is in doubt about whether this or any other western country can be held to ransom by third world powers, he need only reflect on the war in the Gulf and the capability that we were able to bring to bear then.
Tonight I do not simply want to say that we should seek to reduce nuclear arsenals; we should also seek to bring about a comprehensive test ban agreement. There is no longer any need for full-scale nuclear testing. There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that non-nuclear tests—computer simulations and other technical means—can provide adequate information on safety and reliability. It can be argued that the complexity and sophistication of many simulations are such that, if other countries seek to test nuclear weapons in the open air and cease to do so in non-laboratory conditions, they will quickly and easily he spotted and could quickly become the targets of sanctions and other such punishments. A comprehensive test ban treaty would quickly expose those countries which do not have the sophistication and capability to carry out such tests. That would enable us to deal with them far more quickly than we can with the ear stroking which currently passes for diplomacy.
If we were able to show our willingness to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty and could persuade the other three permanent members, plus Russia, to sign as well, we would give a clear signal to all potential proliferators that we were sincere in our intent to reduce the increase and spread of nuclear weapons.
The agenda that I have outlined tonight could have been introduced by the Government and have enjoyed the unanimous support of all hon. Members. It could have provided the Prime Minister with the authority that he needs to assume the chair of the Security Council. Tonight the Government have thrown away that opportunity and betrayed the trust that the international community could have given this country, based on its position as a nuclear power which is not only a member of the permanent five, NATO and the EC, but has a unique link with the third world through its membership of the British Commonwealth.
Instead, we have been presented with a narrow, meaningless, and partisan Government motion. I urge all my right hon. and hon. Friends to join us in the Lobby in support of the official Opposition amendment to the Government motion, which shows the route that a Labour


Government will take after the general election in addressing the problems of the international situation and the realities of nuclear defence in the new world ahead.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Defence policy is always about national security. Sometimes, it is about national survival. Its objectives must always include the deterrence of one's potential enemies and the reassurance of one's friends.
A Government defence policy thus defined will fail, be of no effect, and neither deter nor reassure unless the policies themselves carry public conviction and the politicians who articulate those policies command respect.
There can be neither conviction nor respect unless those who conduct an express defence policy are believed to mean what they say, and to be ready to do that which they say they will do. A defence policy must be founded on a solid basis of conviction. It must be the settled expression of belief. It must clearly reflect a unity of purpose around which a party will rally.
Defence policies that are but expressions of a draftsman's pen, employed to save a political party's fortunes, are contemptible in themselves, discreditable in their purpose, and unavailing in their implementation. As today's debate has made plain, Labour party's defence policy is all of those.
Labour's policy was expressed—if that is not too gracious a word—by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Obadiah Slope of the House of Commons. He made one of the most lacklustre and undistinguished speeches from Labour's Front Bench that I have heard these 12 years.
The right hon. Gentleman made three pledges, and only three. The first was an uncosted and previously undisclosed pledge to compensate the workers of Barrow against the loss of work caused by labour cuts. The right hon. Gentleman will be obliged to give a similar pledge to any other worker who may be affected by labour cuts. Indeed, he has already been asked to do so by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I will place a small bet that pledge was never cleared with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), and I do not believe it.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman shows his utter illiteracy by those stupid comments. Anyone who has studied Labour party policy documents—as Mr. Julian Lewis, who briefs members of the Government Front Bench on such matters, surely—has will know that we made that announcement on 9 May 1989, and that it has been well known ever since. Of course, it is part of the costings on which the ludicrous tax fiction drafted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who cannot get his own Government's costings right, is based.

Mr. Hogg: We see how concerned the right hon. Gentleman is when yet another undisclosed pledge is brought to the electorate's attention. No wonder the taxpayer would face a bill of about £39 billion.
The second commitment or pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman was to subscribe to a test ban treaty. That would make it less easy for the United Kingdom to retain a safe and effective nuclear weapon system, and to that

extent it is wholly incompatible with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that he wants a nuclear defence policy to operate. His third commitment was to embark on a course of further reductions in conventional armaments, which is clearly set out in the amendment to which he has attached his name and which, moreover, clearly represents the implementation of Labour's commitment to a reduction in conventional defence spending of £6 billion year on year.
What the right hon. Gentleman did not do was give any pledges about either Trident or, for that matter, our nuclear deterrent. Time and again, he was pressed to tell the House whether he proposed to order a fourth boat—if he was in a position to do so—or to cancel it if it had already been ordered. He declined to answer that question.
More extraordinary still, the right hon. Gentleman declined to say whether the Labour party intended to retain a nuclear weapon. I listened to his entire speech, and I know that he gave no assurances in that regard. If Labour believes in a defence policy based on nuclear weapons, Labour Members were very careful not to say so.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who said that never had a convert shown so little fervour. It is worth noting that the Opposition amendment proposes to strike out all the commitments to nuclear defence policy contained in the motion. It wholly rejects nuclear deterrence, and Britain's possession of a nuclear weapon. It suggests other things, such as disarmament, but it says nothing about a nuclear weapon.
That is all that I can sensibly say about the right hon. Member for Gorton—no, no; I am being unfair. The right hon. Gentleman made one sensible point, about proliferation. He was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy)—who knows a great deal more about the subject than he does—and, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
The question of proliferation in eastern Europe is certainly a serious issue. So far, some encouraging steps have been taken. First, the republics have committed themselves to a single control of nuclear weapons. Secondly, they support the concept of the ratification of START—the strategic arms reduction treaty. Thirdly, they accept that nuclear weapons should be removed from the republics outside Russia; and, fourthly, they accept—or, at least, Byelorussia and the Ukraine accept—that they should join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty organisation as non-nuclear states.
I entirely agree with the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford about the status of Kazakhstan. He feared that the republics might be less willing, as time went on, to surrender nuclear weapons that they currently possessed. I also agree that NATO has a prominent role to play in assisting the process of dismantling the nuclear systems in eastern Europe. That point was urged strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, and I agree with it.
That is partly what lies behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's decision to convene the Security Council at the end of January, and it is partly that which explains the invitation to President Yeltsin to visit London. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, the United States has allocated $400 million to that matter, ande a in December last year NATO committed itself to helping in the dismantling process. That is highly desirable.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Attercliffe said about strengthening the IAEA. That point received support from his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. There is a powerful case for reinforcing its powers in terms of inspection and an obligation imposed upon suppliers to furnish more information than they do at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden spoke powerfully about the need for Britain to possess a nuclear weapon. He was right to stress, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) that, in eastern Europe and elsewhere, nuclear weapons may be possessed by national Governments who are enthused by nationalism, religious bigotry or just plain tyrants. However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden that the circumstances are more dangerous than they have been in the past. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), I believe that circumstances were more dangerous 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden drew attention, rightly, to the dangers of chemical and biological warfare. He is correct to focus on the requirement For an effective verification regime. The absence of such a regime makes the prevention of the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons so difficult. We hope that, in the 1992 chemical warfare convention, there will be a much more effective verification procedure than we have previously contemplated. In April this year, experts will be further exploring how we could introduce an effective verification procedure for biological warfare.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) expressed the defence policy of the Liberal Democrats. He skilfully shrugged off the reminder of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has shared platforms with CND and has, in the past, committed himself to withdrawing cruise missiles and cancelling Trident.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East tried to reconcile his defence policy with what he described as his aspiration to reduce defence expenditure by 50 per cent. He cannot have it both ways. It is not achievable in any foreseeable defence position, and it is disingenuous of him to call for it. He said—I strongly agree—that it is wrong for anybody to define with exactitude the circumstances in which a nuclear weapon would be used. It is equally foolish for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he would never use a nuclear weapon. That destroys the principle of deterrence. The statement that he would never use such a weapon has never been withdrawn.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East also expressed his doubts about a sub-strategic weapon. There is a logical gap in his argument. He concedes—it is part of his policy—that Britain should have a nuclear deterrent. He must accept that there are certain circumstances in which the threat of the use of a strategic weapon would not be credible whereas the threat of the use of a sub-strategic weapon might be credible. If one did away with the latter, one would leave a gap in Britain's defence policy which I would regard as a very substantial one.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) made a point of considerable importance about the European dimension. It is a sensible point, and we entirely agree that we need to develop a European element in our defence arrangements. We foresee that role being adopted by the Western European Union. It is not a role which is subordinate to the Twelve—the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in that—but nor is it a function which will be prejudicial to NATO, which is at the core of our defence arrangements. However, it is certainly a role which will add to Europe's capacity in area and out of area.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made the type of speech that the House enjoys hearing. Indeed, it was a pleasure for us to hear him champion the cause of unilateralism. He said in terms that he did not think that the Soviets posed a threat to western Europe. I fancy that he would not have cared to make that argument in Budapest or in Prague, and I find it difficult to make a distinction between the two.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman said in terms that neither Iraq nor Argentina was in any way deterred from attacking British interests by reason of our possession of a nuclear weapon. That is not surprising, because it is inconceivable that we would have used a nuclear weapon in those circumstances, not least because of the negative security assurances which positively precluded their use in such circumstances.

Dr. John Reid: In what circumstances would we use them?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question which he knows will receive no answer, because the nature of a deterrent is that it remains uncertain—the nation that has it might be prepared to use it.
I return to the language of the motion.

Dr. Reid: As far as I can make out, the hon. and learned Gentleman has just created a precedent by telling the House that, in the two wars in which we have been involved, it was to—use his word—"inconceivable" that the Government would have used nuclear weapons. In what other circumstances would it be inconceivable for us to use nuclear weapons? Will he elaborate and tell us in what circumstances we would have used them?

Mr. Hogg: I am surprised to hear a defence spokesman ask that question, because he knows that the two cases to which I referred are covered by the negative security assurances which made the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances inconceivable. If he did not know that, I do not mind him admitting it, but it is extraordinary ignorance on his part.
I deal now with the motion on which the House is shortly to vote. It endorses the long-standing commitment of the Conservative party to the concept of nuclear deterrence, to a nuclear-armed NATO, to Britain's own nuclear deterrent, to disarmament through negotiation on strength and to updating where necessary the weapon systems that the United Kingdom possesses.
All those commitments, which are broadly supported by the country, are expressly denied and excluded by the Labour party's amendment. In every one of those commitments, the Conservative party and Conservative Government have led and reflected public opinion and the

 
national interest. The same cannot be said for the Labour party which fought the previous two elections on a programme that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said was disastrous and should have been consigned to the rubbish heap.
I have already said that the success of a Government's defence policies depends on the conviction that those policies and their spokesmen carry in the eyes both of prospective opponents and of present friends. It is therefore right that, when analysing Labour's current declared policy, we should look well at what, until a few months ago, that declared policy manifestly was.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), when presenting Labour's nuclear policy in the House on 22 November, said:
Throughout the 1980s the Labour party was committed to a defence policy which, with regard to nuclear weapons, required the Labour Government to renounce ownership of Polaris and to abandon the Trident programme."—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 550.]
The hon. Gentleman was somewhat less than full in his description of Labour party policy. In addition to the unilateral measures which I have just described, the Labour party's 1983 manifesto called for the rejection of any fresh nuclear bases or weapons on British soil or in British waters, and the removal of all existing nuclear bases and weapons. The same manifesto committed a Labour Government to preventing the siting of cruise missiles in Britain and to the removal of any that were then in place. Broadly similar commitments were repeated in the 1987 manifesto.
Seldom has the passage of time so swiftly, effectively and comprehensively destroyed the intellectual foundations of the main plank of a party's defence policy. The truth is that, for the past 12 years, Labour has espoused a defence policy which never had intellectual validity and which, if implemented, would have exposed Britain to grave security risks.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
The House must now look with great caution at the policies that Labour now purports to espouse. They have been most recently espoused by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, who is not even a member of the shadow Cabinet. That caution is reinforced when one considers the close connection that exists between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the cause of unilateralism, and the Labour party.
The constitution of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has one merit: it is clear. The policies are silly and dangerous, but at least they are clear. I quote from the declared aims and policies of CND:
CND believes that British independent nuclear weapons and American nuclear bases and weapons in Britain do nothing to increase the security of Britain…and should be unilaterally and unconditionally rejected and removed.
The key elements of the Labour party manifestos of 1983 and of 1987 are to be found in the CND constitution.
It is not at all surprising that there should be a close identity of interest between the policy and constitution of CND and those of the Labour party, because many Labour Members have been or now are members of CND.
Let us begin with the Leader of the Opposition. He joined CND 31 years ago. For 30 years, he was a paid-up and apparently loyal supporter of its policies. Until very recently, his public statements were unreservedly unilateralist. In 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989—in seven of the past nine years—the right hon. Gentleman publicly and enthusiastically endorsed key demands and policies of CND. Unilateral disarmament for Britain was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. The closure of nuclear bases, the decommissioning of Polaris and the cancellation of Trident were all his policies.
Then followed what was, for the right hon. Gentleman, a period of unaccustomed silence—until, in July last year,The Guardian reported that the right hon. Gentleman and Mrs. Kinnock had allowed their 30-year membership of CND to lapse. What a way to disclose a change of strategic policy. What had happened during the previous 30 months to cause the right hon. Gentleman to change his apparent convictions of 30 years? Was it that he suddenly realised that his convictions of the past 30 years were false, or did he simply realise that the electorate could not stomach them?
What about the right hon. Member for Gorton? Where did he stand in the past? We certainly do not know where he stands today. I can tell the House something about the right hon. Gentleman: he opposed the deployment of the cruise missile, and of Trident—something that he now says he supports. As recently as 1987, he sacked his adviser, Mr. Richard Heller, for writing an article that stated in precise terms the Labour party's policy of today. With what I can only describe as a cavalier disregard for the obligations of a good employer, the right hon. Gentleman issued a statement which said:
Mr. Kaufman completely disagrees with the article"—
which, as I said, stated in every respect the Labour party's policy, in so far as it is comprehensible, as now stated.
What about the rest of the Labour Front Bench? There are 18 elected members of the shadow Cabinet, 14 of whom have been members of CND and a number of whom still are. One of them is a vice-president of CND. As late as 1989, three members of the shadow Cabinet signed Tribune's appeal in support of British unilateral nuclear disarmament and the removal of the United States bases from Britain. According to Ms. Marjorie Thompson, the chairman of CND, there are now between 100 and 130 Labour Members who support CND and are its members.
There is nothing immoral about being a member of CND, but we must understand that the principles and policies of that organisation are wholly different from the principles and policies set out in the motion. They are completely incompatible with the defence policies of NATO, and cannot be reconciled with Labour's policy as currently declared. I therefore approach Labour's declared commitment to a nuclear-based defence policy with great scepticism. I do not believe that what we have heard today represents a settled statement of policy, or that it is founded upon solid conviction.
My scepticism is reinforced by a reading of the words of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who wound up the debate in November last year. Seeking to explain Labour's defence policies in the 1980s, he said:
I make no apologies for supporting that policy six or seven years ago. It was a tactic, not a principle—and not an end in itself."—[Official Report,22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 597.]


I find that an extraordinary statement of policy, because I had always believed that, in so far as it had any justification at all, the Labour party's commitment to unilateralism, to the closure of bases, to the withdrawal from NATO, was based on a principle—on a deeply held conviction that those things were wrong.
That was, and appears still to be, the view of Labour Members; it is not the view, however, of those who shape policy on the Labour Front Bench. For them the commitments which, as they now admit, would have destroyed our security were never issues of principle but bargaining ploys, chips on the table, mere tactics.
That brings me to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. We shall remember words that he used in an interview with The Independent:
If we have changed our mind to win we can change our mind when we have won. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question,That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 345

Division No. 35]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley, N.)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Don


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Enright, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Tony
Flannery, Martin


Blunkett, David
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cox, Tom
Henderson, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cunningham, Dr John
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Hood, Jimmy


Darling, Alistair
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Doug





Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John


lngram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Robertson, George


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Rooney, Terence


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, lan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum A.
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (lsl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Straw, Jack


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wigley, Dafydd


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Brian


Mowlam, Marjorie
Winnick, David


Mullin, Chris
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Murphy, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wray, Jimmy


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Hara, Edward



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Parry, Robert



Pendry, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Bellotti, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alton, David
Benyon, W.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Body, Sir Richard


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Batiste, Spencer
Brazier, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Beith, A. J.
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)






Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Chris
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cartwright, John
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howells, Geraint


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eggar, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
Kilfedder, James


Fallon, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Farr, Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Fearn, Ronald
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kirkwood, Archy


Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)
Knapman, Roger


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Knowles, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knox, David


Forth, Eric
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lang, Rt Hon lan


Fox, Sir Marcus
Latham, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Lawrence, lvan


Freeman, Roger
Lee, John (Pendle)


French, Douglas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fry, Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gale, Roger
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gardiner, Sir George
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Livsey, Richard


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lord, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maclennan, Robert


Gregory, Conal
McLoughlin, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Madel, David





Major, Rt Hon John
Shelton, Sir William


Malins, Humfrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marlow, Tony
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sims, Roger


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mates, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Speller, Tony


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Squire, Robin


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanbrook, lvor


Mills, Iain
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Nicol


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stevens, Lewis


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stokes, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Summerson, Hugo


Mudd, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Valley)


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thorne, Neil


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thurnham, Peter


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, lrvine
Tredinnick, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trippier, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr lan


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Portillo, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Powell, William (Corby)
Wallace, James


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Ward, John


Redwood, John
Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Warren. Kenneth


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, Sir John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilshire, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 320, Noes 49.

Division No. 36]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amery. Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Farr, Sir John


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Franks, Cecil


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, Sir George


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hague, William


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cartwright, John
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Tim


Dicks. Terry
Jessel, Toby





Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Price, Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Redwood, John


Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knox, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Latham, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, Sir William


Lord, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Speller, Tony


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Mans, Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Stokes, Sir John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus



Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Walters, Sir Dennis


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, Sir John


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Ray


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David






Winterton, Mrs Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Nicholas



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. David Lightbown and


Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Yeo, Tim





NOES


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lamond, James


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livsey, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Loyden, Eddie


Bellotti, David
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McKelvey, William


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Madden, Max


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Carlile, Alex (Monfg)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cohen, Harry
Mullin, Chris


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Salmond, Alex


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Douglas, Dick
Stephen, Nicol


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Strang, Gavin


Fearn, Ronald
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fyfe, Maria
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Johnston, Sir Russell



Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House supports unequivocally the concept of nuclear deterrence and the retention of a credible United Kingdom nuclear deterrent, while other countries have, or seek to acquire, nuclear weapons; notes the great dangers apparent in the increase in the number of countries gaining, or seeking to gain, access to nuclear weapons; understands that the country's nuclear deterrent remains essential for the defence of the United Kingdom and NATO; recognises the vital contribution to world peace which the United Kingdom's nuclear forces have made, and will continue to make, through deterrence; and supports NATO's policy of also maintaining an up-to-date, sub-strategic nuclear capability based in Europe.

Ports (Disposal of Land)

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
That the draft Ports Act 1991 (Levy on Disposals of Land, etc.) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.
The draft order makes provisions under sections 17 and 18 of the Ports Act 1991. Its purpose is to enable a levy to be applied to gains arising from disposals of land or of an interest in land carried out by the new owners of trust ports privatised under the Act, in the years following privatisation.
It may assist hon. Members if I make clear the relationship between the order and the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. In reply to a question in the House from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on 18 December that he was minded to give his formal consent to the sale of the authority's undertaking to Teesside Holdings Ltd., but that this would be possible only after the scheme of transfer submitted by the authority under section 9(1) of the Ports Act and the order which we are debating this evening had come into effect.
The scheme of transfer came into effect on 30 December. The order relates to the whole of the ports privatisation programme, and no sales of trust ports can take place under the 1991 Act until the order is in place. Hon. Members will be aware that, since my right hon. and learned Friend made his statement on 18 December, representations have been put to him concerning the Tees and Hartlepool sale by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and other hon. Members. My right hon. and learned Friend is looking into those representations carefully and he will not take a final decision on the sale until that process is complete. I do not believe that it would be right for me to add anything further on that subject during the debate in anticipation of the conclusion of the process which my right hon. and learned Friend has put in hand.

Mr. Roger Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is saying that the decision on Tees and Hartlepool cannot be taken until the order has been passed? Is not that a strong argument for those of us who are concerned about what has happened in Tees and Hartlepool not to allow the order to go through until such time as the matter has been re-examined?

Mr. McLoughlin: The order is general to the whole ports privatisation programme. It is not the case that the sale could not go ahead without the order. The sale could go ahead, but it would be without the clawback provisions which I think the whole House finds desirable. This is a short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and many hon. Members wish to catch your eye. I think that it would be right for me to describe the outlines of the order and then try to catch your eye later to respond to questions which are put in the debate.
The Government take the view that the sale of ports under the Act should be carried out so as to ensure that the price that is paid for them is the best open market price, subject to whatever other objectives of sale a port agrees with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of


State. Nevertheless, it is still possible that land that some ports hold will turn out to have a significantly higher value than was expected at the time of sale——

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not be able to respond to all the criticisms as the amount of time for this debate will have been reduced.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy.
Does the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the sale of the English port authority hold for the privatisation of the Clyde port authority? Since that authority announced its intention to privatise itself, British Steel's director announced the closure of Ravenscraig which, together with the attendant closure of the Hunterston terminal, will have a direct bearing on the earning power of the Clyde port authority. Will the Minister give me a list later this evening of the parties that have formally declared an interest in acquiring the Clyde port authority?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that the Minister may find it somewhat difficult to respond to that intervention without widening the debate beyond the scope of the order.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to describe the order. The hon. Gentleman's comments may be the subject of legitimate debate on a wider issue and if he cares to write to me I shall try to answer his questions. I feel that I should now make some progress on the order, as I know that several hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
If land held by some ports turns out to have a significantly higher value than was expected at the time of the sale, that will result in an excessive windfall gain for the new owner which was not foreseeable at the time of privatisation, and therefore not properly reflected in the price paid for the undertaking. The subsequent sale of such land would, of course, be subject to capital gains tax, but We consider that there should be a further levy on the enhanced value of such property to prevent the excessive windfall gains that would otherwise result.
Of course, as was made clear in the extensive debates on the Ports Act last year, one of our objectives in seeking the privatisation of major trust ports is to make it easier for them to realise the value of their property holdings, so we need to strike a careful balance between preventing excessive windfall gains and deterring the port companies from turning their property to best account. That is why the Act provides for the levy to be time-limited to 10 years after privatisation, and why it will amount to a relatively small proportion of the gains. For example, for the first five years it will be 25 per cent., and taper down to 20 per cent. in years six and seven, and to 10 per cent. thereafter—on top of the capital gains tax.
Parliament agreed to the Act providing for the limited period levy on land disposals made after privatisation. Sections 17 and 18 of the Act therefore set out the basic framework within which the levy is to operate, and the order, the draft of which is now before the House, will fill in the details.
The draft order makes provision in the following main areas. Article 6 provides that all disposals of relevant land

or interest in land are chargeable disposals. They include freehold disposals, leasehold disposals and the granting of options to acquire land. There are, however, significant instances in which no gain is deemed to arise, and in which therefore no levy is chargeable.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 provides that the base data for the valuation of land for the purposes of levy will be the date of privatisation. That will also be the commencement date of the levy period. The base value for the land will be the market value on an existing use basis. The base value will be index-linked.
It is not intended that the levy should apply to all disposals irrespective of size, and paragraph 8 makes provision for exemptions below certain limits. First, the levy is payable on any disposal only when the aggregate value of all disposals over the whole 10-year period exceeds "an overall threshold" of £500,000, or 10 per cent. of the port sale proceeds if that is less. Secondly, individual disposals below a threshold limit of £200,000, or 2 per cent. of the port sale proceeds if that is less, are referred to in the draft order as "small disposals" and do not give rise to a levy, although they do count against the overall threshold.
Finally, individual disposals of less than £4,000, up to a maximum of 20 per year, are referred to as "disregarded disposals" and are exempted from the levy itself, do not count against the overall threshold and do not need even to be recorded. All those limits are index-linked.
Articles 18 to 26 deal with leases. Under article 25, leases of operational land used for operational purposes are also disregarded for levy purposes, since those are considered to form part of a port's normal business activities and could not on that basis be seen as giving rise to windfall gains.
Leases for non-operational purposes are not exempted, but, where they are for rent, they are subject to special provisions reflecting the fact that any gain arising is spread over a period of years. They are treated as if granted for a single premium equal to their market value, but any levy arising from them can be paid in annual instalments. In addition, article 18 effectively provides relief from corporation tax on rental income by reducing the amount of gain on which levy is payable.

Mr. Tim Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I would rather not, for the simple reason that a number of hon. Members want to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] However, as Opposition Members seem intent on my giving way, I am happy to do so, even thought that will give them less time.

Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend briefly mentioned leases for non-operational purposes. I am intrigued as to why any operational lease taken out later than six months before the start of the clawback provision will be included. It means that, if a port wants to utilise land for operational purposes and increasing the entrepreneurial and useful activity that takes place in the port, it will, in effect, have to pay extra tax to the Treasury for the privilege of doing so. That strikes me as counter-productive to the aims and objectives of the Conservative party, which are to encourage initiative and risk taking.

Mr. McLoughlin: I do not believe that my hon. Friend's assumption is correct. We needed to strike a fair balance in terms of any windfall gain that might occur.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, you kindly and helpfully guided the House on the scope of the order. A question was put to the Minister relating specifically to whether or not the order's contents conformed with Conservative party policies. Is that not without the scope of the order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Minister will remain in order when he responds.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was perhaps arguing that we had drawn the clawback provision for any windfall gains too tightly. Throughout the whole process, we were keen to achieve a balance in the treatment of windfall gains.

Mr. Janman: I was talking not about windfall gains or land leased out for non-operational purposes but about leases entered into by a port post-privatisation that are for the purposes of allowing other companies to use the port's land on a leasehold basis for the importation, storage, or manufacture of products. Those are the purposes for which a port should be used. That the order does not exclude all operational leases is counter-productive to my party's aim of encouraging entrepreneurial and risk-taking activities.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend and I will just have to agree to disagree on that point. We felt that it was right to achieve an overall balance between what might and might not be a windfall gain, which is why we excluded operational leases after consulting a number of the ports directly affected by the order.
The draft order contains a number of provisions intended as counter-avoidance measures, particularly where there are disposals of land or interests in land within a group of companies.
Article 33 ensures that a transfer between members of a group gives rise to chargeable gains where the holding of the parent company in its subsidiaries is anything less than 100 per cent. Article 34 enables levy to be charged on the full increase in value of assets that have been transferred to a company which subsequently leaves the 75 per cent. group, and article 35 provides for the recalculation of the gain on an intra-group transfer if, following the transfer, there is a decrease in the equity of that company held by the parent company.
Schedule 1 sets out rules for determining when disposals are to be treated as "associated". If a small disposal can be shown to be "associated" with one or more other disposals, it is their aggregate value that is taken into account in determining whether levy should be charged on the small disposal. This is intended to counter attempts to avoid clawback through the small disposals exemption by, for instance, fragmenting one large disposal into many smaller ones to the same purchaser.
In terms of the administration of the levy, provisions are made in articles 13 to 16 for payment, including the payment of interest after certain dates. Where interest is payable, the rate is reduced by an amount equivalent to the effect of tax relief. Article 17 provides for repayment by a Minister of any sums found to have been paid in error or following a recalculation. Repayment by the Minister will also carry interest from certain dates, and will apply to levy, to interest on unpaid levy or both, as appropriate.
Finally, detailed provisions are made in articles 36 to 41 for the recording of disposals, and for the provision of the information to the appropriate Minister; for assessment of levy in certain circumstances by the Minister; for the settlement of certain disputes that might arise by a referee; and for penalties in line with those already in the Ports Act 1991 in respect of the levy on the proceeds of port sales.
An earlier version of the draft order was circulated during the autumn to the trust ports that are seeking privatisation. The process proved extremely valuable in helping us to achieve a proper balance in the draft order in such important areas as the treatment of leases and the provisions for associated disposals—and I am grateful for the constructive comments made by the ports and by Conservative Members who made representations.
I am now confident that the draft order makes arrangements for the levy that adequately safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, without being unduly onerous or restrictive in regard to the operations of the privatised ports. The order is a crucial element in the ports privatisation programme. As many hon. Members will be aware, a number of the largest ports have already taken advantage of the provisions of the Act to begin the process of privatisation. Once the draft order has been approved, it will help to ensure that the interests of the taxpayer are properly safeguarded, and ports will be less attractive to those whose only interest is in realising the property value of the port in the short term.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments reported that the order was a drafting mess and was likely to lead to a good many legal actions. Are we considering the report at the same time as the order? The Minister did not refer to the report, but I have just read a carefully argued case to the effect that the order is a bit of a mess. Is that relevant to tonight's debate, or is it not?

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, may I point out that the basic part of the order relating to the type of land that was subject to the levy was dealt with by the report because of its defective drafting? Like the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I was very disappointed by the Minister's failure to make any relevant comment—indeed, any comment at all—on the Committee's report. That is particularly disappointing in view of the fact that the House gives the Committee the task of reporting defects, of which the order provides a prime example.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm to both hon. Members that the Select Committee's report is relevant, and can be referred to.

Ms. Joan Walley: I agree wholeheartedly that the whole order is a mess. It is as much a mess as the Government's entire policy on trust port privatisation. What we have just heard about the Select Committee report may well provide a further opportunity for the House to debate the implications of that policy in detail.
It is a measure of our success in Committee that we forced the Government to make the order subject to the affirmative resolution of the House. An hour and a half is not long enough to debate this controversial issue.


Although we would like to amend the order, it is procedurally impossible. We cannot even throw it out, because I am sure that the Government Whips will have learnt from their experience in Committee and will make sure that they do not lose the vote today as they lost the vote on disposal and levies on clawback and land.
We make no apology for the debate on this order as it is the only mechanism available to the Opposition to expose the sheer blinding incompetence, which we have just seen demonstrated, of the Government's handling of ports policy.
When we sat in Committee last year, I do not think that even we could have anticipated the mess into which the Government have got themselves over their handling of ports policy.

Mr. John Prescott: It was a mess in Committee.

Ms. Walley: Yes, it was.
It is not just the Opposition who are expressing concern about the Government's mishandling of ports policy: it is also the press and media. We need look no further than today's editorial in theFinancial Times. The work forces in trust ports up and down the country are also saying that the Government have got themselves into a mess as well as local authority leaders of whatever political persuasion. They can spot a bad egg when they see one, and this legislation and the badly drafted order are a clear example.
There is general despair at the Government's wholesale mishandling of trust ports privatisation. That extends, surprisingly, to those who have supported the Government throughout in their bid to sell off trust ports lock, stock and barrel, including land and assets that the Government do not even own. It is reminiscent of the commercial television franchise sell-off fiasco a short time ago.
Transport Ministers have got it wrong. When they got it wrong earlier this week, they went out and bought chocolates and flowers to try to put things right. I do not know whether the Minister is responsible for this fiasco. I could be generous and say that perhaps he is just a scapegoat—I will give him the benefit of the doubt—but he cannot buy himself out of this mess with chocolates and flowers.

Mr. Cryer: He signed the order.

Ms. Walley: There is more involved. The Government have got the ports industry into a mess. The order has given us three weeks grace to hammer home a message which fell on deaf ears this time last year. It has given my hon. Friends, particularly those representing Cleveland, time to alert the local community in Tees and Hartlepool to what Cleveland county council and Labour Members warned would happen. It has given other hon. Friends—and friends who I hope will soon be honourable—time to alert Tilbury to the threat hanging over that port. It has given my hon. Friends who are concerned about Scotland time to assess the implications for the local economy of the lethal cocktail of Ravenscraig closure and trust port privatisation, should the management buy-out bid be unsuccessful.

Mr. Janman: The hon. Lady has mentioned the best port in Britain—Tilbury, which is in my constituency. The

biggest threat hanging over that port was the dock labour scheme, which we abolished and the Labour party would bring back.

Ms. Walley: I shall cover that point if I am allowed to continue. I do not intend to give way again because time is limited.
But for the order, the Tees and Hartlepool ports authority would have been signed, sealed and delivered by now. The only reason it is not is because the Secretary of State has not been able to proceed because the order is necessary for the affirmative procedure of the House.
We want to examine the Government's mismanagement and incompetence in their handling of the order. What we have seen in this instance is surpassed only by the Government's mishandling of the entire 1991 legislation. When we were discussing the Levy on Disposals of Land, etc. Order and the 50 per cent. clawback on the net proceeds of the sale, one issue on which we pressed the Government repeatedly in Committee was how the order, once introduced, should take account of the Government's professed commitment to management and employee buy-outs.
We said that such an order must be fair and must not allow huge speculative developments—we are talking about the time before the recession, or before it was admitted that the recession was upon us—and we pressed the Government on the fact that, if there was to be a commitment to management and employee buy-outs, it should be reflected in the order, and that management-employee bids should not be precluded because some companies could make a quick profit.
The order reveals a serious questioning of what I believe to be the Government's lip service to management-employee buy-outs. It shows that the Government's commitment was not real and is not real now. We know that because of the way in which events have unfolded in the Tees and Hartlepool bid. What is the point of writing into the Bill supplementary clauses relating to financial assistance to proposals to maximise employee participation in the equity of successor companies and of setting the trigger mechanisms for clawback, as we have just heard from the Minister, on land and lease disposals, which ostensibly encourage management-employee buy-outs if, by the same token, the Secretary of State is not immediately mindful to go ahead and approve the bids outstanding in Cleveland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on reading."] I shall not accept any further interventions. The order raises questions that the Minister must answer. Hon. Members talk about reading—they should have asked the Minister why he did not depart from his brief.
There are serious allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption in the Tees and Hartlepool bidding. They have been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) in Cleveland. The Minister should comment on that. He must also say why, when I asked on 19 December if he would undertake a full investigation of the circumstances of the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool trust board, he replied that there was no need for such an investigation.
What has happened in the meantime? Was it the representations made by my hon. Friends? How has it been possible to move the goal posts halfway through selling off Tees and Hartlepool? Should there not be an inquiry? Are we not in an even worse position now than


yesterday, since we have learnt, courtesy of the Financial Times,that the Government now propose to prevent any information from coming into the public domain? What does it say about the state of our democracy if hon. Members are not allowed information about other bids to consider the implications of what has happened with regard to Tees and Hartlepool?

Mr. Janman: What has that to do with the order?

Ms. Walley: It has everything to do with the order, because the order has so far prevented the sale from being signed, sealed and delivered.

Mr. McLoughlin: indicated dissent.

Ms. Walley: The Minister shakes his head, but he knows that that is so.
There are further issues. We are told that the Government are concerned that the bid should have gone ahead, yet on Teesside the company that the Minister has thought until now to accept told the work force that, if the proposal went ahead, staff could subscribe up to a maximum of £2,500 in £1 shares. Does the Minister not understand that, although the solicitors admitted that the statement was legally factual, it would be the case only if approximately one in seven of the work force took up the offer? In discussing the issue within the terms of the order, we are raising questions about the Government's approach to Teesside and to Teesside Holdings, whether companies which make such false promises are fit to run our ports and whether a Government who support such behaviour are fit to handle our transport policy.
We hear about ways in which assurances have been given by Teesside Holdings on trade union recognition. To my knowledge, no consultation has taken place. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that issue.
The order raises other issues, not least the port of London and Tilbury. As promised, I come to that aspect now. Before you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must say that the matter is relevant because the Minister needs to explain to the House how the order is relevant to Tilbury. Tilbury is not covered within the terms and references of the legislation, but what happens in Tilbury will depend very much on and will be guided by the order.
The Port of London paid extensive amounts in compensation under the dock labour scheme. It is important that the Minister should say whether it is in respect of that debt that the port of Tilbury is being treated differently as regards the order and the clawback arrangements for land and lease disposals.
There are other relevant issues. The Minister should tell us how the order affects Tilbury and he should clarify whether the debenture arrangements will be based on the clawback order. Will he clarify the basis for the debenture arrangements? What will happen to the revenue generated by the sale of land and leases relating to the port of Tilbury?
The order gives us the opportunity to ask whether the Minister has approved the scheme to transfer the assets of the port of Tilbury to the Port of Tilbury London Ltd

Was not the deadline supposed to be 31 December 1991? Has the Minister delayed the transfer scheme and, if so, why? Is it because of the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) about his concerns about the way in which the leases have been dealt with under the clawback scheme and about the implications for the viability of the port of the operations being excluded——

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Walley: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise his concerns.

Mr. Janman: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she will not give way.

Ms. Walley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Janman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to put words into the mouth of another hon. Member and then not to have the courtesy to give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate; it is not a point of order.

Ms. Walley: I was simply referring to the hon. Gentleman's earlier points in relation to my comments about Tilbury. He will no doubt have an opportunity in the debate to raise the issues of concern to him.

Mr. Janman: rose——

Ms. Walley: I do not intend to give way.

Mr.Janman: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye, he is not improving his chances.

Ms. Walley: It is also important that the Minister should tell the House whether the reason for the delay is that the bidder is seeking to avoid meeting the legal costs incurred as a result of the industrial tribunal's unanimous decision to recommend that the 12 sacked shop stewards should be re-engaged and that a further seven sacked shop stewards should be entitled to full compensation. I have before me the report of what must have been the longest industrial tribunal hearing in history. We need to know whether the delay since 31 December has been solely the result of the new owner trying to avoid having to meet the legal costs. I remind the Minister that the Department and the Secretary of State are responsible for overseeing the board. How can a Minister or Secretary of State ignore the ruling of an industrial tribunal in this way? All those matters are relevant to the present order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Has there been full consultation on the operational issues, which need to be taken on board?
The order deals with finance. It is complicated and badly drafted, and shows the Government's incompetence. As a result of the Government's complete mishandling of trust ports policy, none of us can have any confidence in the way in which they are running their ports and their transport policy. Opposition Members will vote against the order when the time comes.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I rise to speak this evening because, as the House may be aware, on 18 December I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State a question about the disposal of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. In the last paragraph of his reply, my right hon. and learned Friend wrote:
I am minded to give my formal consent to the sale of the authority's undertaking to Teesside Holdings Limited as soon as I am able to do so. This will be possible only after the scheme of transfer submitted by the authority under section 9(1) of the Ports Act 1991 and the order providing for a levy on disposals of land to be made under section 17 of the Act have come into effect. The latter is subject to an affirmative resolution of the House and is expected to be debated immediately after the Christmas recess."—[Official Report,18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 164]
That is the order before us.
The present levy comes on top of a 50 per cent. levy on the disposal proceeds of the port. The combination of the levy on the land and the levy on the disposal assets of the port has already created some confusion among those involved in the bidding for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. One of the bidders—indeed, the successful bidder—apparently had to have the sales proceeds provision explained to him twice to enable him to advance a bid which was acceptable as a final bid and which, in fact, became the successful bid.
As Conservative Members have argued on many occasions, there were three reasons for privatisation: first, to widen the powers of the port authority; secondly, to widen the share ownership by giving a substantial block of shares—I lay heavy emphasis on the word "substantial"—to the management and employees of the port; and, thirdly, to raise proceeds of sale revenue for the Government. Those three objectives were set out clearly in the sale of undertaking notices placed by the board's advisers in the national newspapers and magazines. The first stated quite clearly that the authority was prepared to consider
financially competitive offers from parties who can satisfy the privatisation objectives",
the first of which was
to have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers and staff of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of its privatized undertaking".
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was quite right in his assertion that without the order that disposal could not take place, but it appears that in the case of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority the key objective has not been the one followed by the port. I was interested to hear that the Minister was minded to accept the board's recommendation, but it came as a considerable surprise to the management and employees of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, and as a considerable shock to Conservative supporters of privatisation, who had close liaison with the management-employee buy-out team at every stage of the process.
Indeed, this management were the first in the country to put forward a privatisation measure in the form of a private Bill. It will be remembered that it was Opposition Members who opposed that Bill at every stage and that it was the Labour-controlled Cleveland county council that felled it when it was being considered in another place. When the Government introduced their own Bill for the disposal of all the ports, Labour Members voted against it, just as the attractiveness of these undertakings, which was

underpinned by the Dock Work Act 1989, is ignored by all Opposition Members. Therefore, it ill behoves those hon. Members to present themselves now as the champions of the management-employee buy-out team.
During this privatisation the objectives seem to have altered. Originally, there were three; now there are eight, and they are more complicated. It appears that, during the privatisation, the indicative bidders were under the impression—having been so advised—that the price was only one of the criteria. When it came to final bids, however, it was taken to be the leading criterion. Each of the indicative bidders was advised by KPMG Peat Marwick, the advisers to the port authority, as to the deficiencies of their bids. In the case of the management-employee buy-out team, there were very few deficiencies. In fact, a very small increment was applied to the price that had been offered. Apart from that, the team's bid, which was the highest indicative bid, was to all intents and purposes nearly perfect.
As I pointed out, one of the other indicative bidders had to have the matter of the proceeds of sale explained again. That bidder then put forward a revised bid considerably bigger than that of the management-employee buy-out team. Had the price been signified to the management-employee buy-out team as the most significant criterion, it would have been open to the team to introduce equity partners, as the other bidders did. Together with those partners, the team could have submitted a very much larger bid. Indeed, I have been told by the leader of the team that it would have been able to submit a bid of about £190 million—in excess of the apparently winning bid.
I wish to confine my remarks to the bidding process that was followed. I do not want to become involved in mud-slinging against any of the bidders—something that has been done in the regional press—nor do I want to become involved in the records of individuals, against some of whose names are marks that have been flagged up by Opposition Members. I am sure that Opposition Members agree that, after a very long time, any person should be given the benefit of bygones being allowed to be bygones.
It is ironic that those who held up the torch of enterprise in the north-east of England should have it snatched from them as a reward for their endeavours. It is a source of great regret to me that that should have happened. The effect on the other port authorities which are now seeking to privatise themselves—for example, Medway, Clyde and others—is that they will be considerably more reluctant to go down the path of privatisation because they have seen what has happened to Tees and Hartlepool. After all, as we all know, turkeys are hardly likely to vote for Christmas. In the words of my constituent, Mr. Hutchinson, "If that is not cheating, what is?"

Mr. Frank Cook: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that, perhaps, Opposition Members who voted against the original legislation were wiser on that occasion than he has been on this occasion?

Mr. Devlin: No. I do not think that there is any wisdom in allowing a port to build up a huge cash balance which it cannot spend on benefits to a local community simply because its powers are curtailed. That is exactly what was resisted by all Opposition Members.
If I may briefly sum up before any votes are cast on this important order, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his opening comments. He said that he would look again at the process by which the Tees and Hartlepool port authority bids have been received and dealt with by the board. Of course, everyone on Teesside will accept that, if there is a preferred bidder and the board is very much behind that bidder, it would be very difficult for the Government to go against that bid.
Everyone understands that, if the Government picked the lowest bidder, Opposition Members would accuse us of giving the port to our friends. That simply cannot be the case. If there has been some irregularity in the mode by which the bids have been received and if unfair opportunities or, perhaps, not fair opportunities have been given to particular bidders, I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to look at the matter again and to give all those bidders a fair chance once more.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I want to reiterate the stand that I have taken for a number of years. I am totally opposed to the privatisation of the ports that are affected by the Ports Act 1991. I make it abundantly clear also that the order is a mish-mash of incompetence. It is typical of the arguments that have been used by the privateers for many months. The privatisation supporters have found, even at this time, great embarrassment arising from the fact that, in respect of other legislation in recent months, there has been a need to rush through the processes of the House in such a manner that there has not been a proper in-depth examination of the consequences of the relevant policies.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who will no longer be with us fairly shortly, referred to the loss of a Bill which was part of this argument and which related, of course, to the order, as I shall show, in a way that suggested that he wants to avoid the truth of what actually happened. The hon. Member for Hartlepool prefers to use the record. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority, the promoters of the private Bill, or the hon. Gentleman, even after my request to that authority, have not published the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee. Under a special heading, "Opinion of the Committee", the Committee stated:
The Committee does not believe that the promoters have proved their need for this Bill…the promoters have not convinced the Committee that the reconstruction of the Port Authority as a Companies Act company in the way proposed is the right way to achieve this end. Nor have they persuaded us that it would be right to give them the very wide powers they seek.
Those powers are not dissimilar to the wide powers under the Ports Act.
The Select Committee report continued:
It would thus be possible for the privatised Authority"—
the promoters—
to undertake commercial activities of which it has no experience … such risks"—
that is, inviting predators—
could have a detrimental impact on local industry and on the local economy…For the reasons set out in this report the Committee do not consider that it is expedient for the bill to proceed.

That deals with the case of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. The arguments that I have just outlined are not my opinions, but those of the House of Lords Select Committee, on which there is a Conservative majority, as there is in this Chamber. The THPA even refused to publish those significant details.
On 18 December, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South, the Secretary of State rightly published a precise and clear statement, which read:
the Department and its advisers kept closely in touch with the THPA board as it carried out the sale process. I am satisfied that the board discharged its responsibilities in a fair and in a proper manner and, in particular, I am satisfied that it considered carefully each of the bids in relation to the agreed objectives of sale.
The Secretary of State concluded that letter by saying that the transfer scheme and this order are the preliminaries which are necessary before he can make a formal statement of consent. Therefore, the order is relevant to his emphatic declaration that he was satisfied that everything was carried out "in a proper manner".
As has been said, on the following day, in answering a question about the complaints that had been received, the Secretary of State made it quite clear that there was no reason to carry out any further investigation. In my view, he was right then, and he was convinced then. Since then, however, after the complaint had been deposited, the chairman of the THPA has issued a letter to every employee, making clear the reasons why the board decided to recommend the bid that was put to the Secretary of State. The wording of that letter shows his concern about the way in which some of the complaints have been dealt with.
After the tabling of those complaints, in the full knowledge that the Secretary of State was aware of them, and bearing in mind the statements of 18 and 19 December 1991, I wish to make it abundantly clear to the Minister that I shall not make any comments on those complaints, because I recognise from his statement that, as a matter of courtesy, he will consider them, although he will not necessarily agree with the recommendation that was put to him. However, I advise him that John Peart, the chairman of the port authority board and of the reconstruction committee, remains adamant that the proper procedures, laid down in agreement with the Department, were carried out. In addition, Peat Marwick McLintock, the port authority's auditors for many years and responsible for handling the day-to-day administration of the sale, have made it clear in writing that the proper objectives and conditions of sale were met. Furthermore, Mr. K. Fletcher, a partner of Jacksons, the board's legal advisers, is adamant that the proper procedures were carried out.
Indeed, the Minister for Shipping has confirmed in writing his satisfaction about the way in which the sale procedure was carried out. That letter is dated 9 January, which is after the complaints were deposited. He made that point clear to me because I had been concerned to ensure that the proper procedures were carried out. He said:
both officials of this Department and Price Waterhouse, our advisors on the sale, monitored the process closely. The Department issued clear guidelines to the trust ports on the conduct of such sales, including the release of information. Price Waterhouse tell me"—
that is, the Minister for Shipping—
that the complaints made to them were satisfactorily resolved.


In that case, the Minister has a problem on his hands. He has rightly gone no further than to say that he will consider the complaints. He has not said one word about reviewing the recommendation made to him. Therefore, I accept that position.
The Minister has many advisors and gave a commitment in writing that he was satisfied with their advice. He knows full well that he has said to the House and to the country that he is satisfied that there was a continuing close working relationship between his advisors and the port authority. In that circumstance, and as others supported the view that the procedures were followed, if on considering the complaints the Secretary of State had doubts for one moment, he was virtually telling people with years of integrity and a good reputation of serving his Department and the board that they were not telling the truth. That is a serious matter.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): Following the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he agree that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was very much the architect and engine of this legislation? It was the first of the trust ports to go for privatisation under the Bill. It is worth commenting that perhaps the procedures and the way in which the privatisation has developed did not conform to the original objectives of the private Bill that the authority promoted. The authority's Bill was for a management-employee buy-out. Does he agree that in those circumstances, and given my hon. Friend the Minister's statement, the Minister is wholly justified in looking one more time at the parameters of the bids to see whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) mentioned, they cannot be fitted into the philosophy of privatisation so that employees can share in the wealth that they create?

Mr. Leadbitter: It would be difficult to have a re-run, knowing full well not only the statutory requirements but the obligations in any tendering process followed by any utility and especially by the Government in this form of privatisation in which bidders are invited. Having been satisfied that the procedures were followed properly, it would be wrong to have a re-run on the basis of complaints that have already been rebutted in writing by the Department, the Minister, the board and everyone who gave financial and legal advice.

Mr. Barry Field: rose——

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall not give way—I will simply respond to the question.
As for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority being the architect, I am sorry to say that the promoters of the private Bill made up their minds in June 1988, but they did not tell anyone until November, three or four days before depositing the Bill on the closing day. They did not consult anyone. They did not consult the county council or Members of Parliament. They simply introduced the Bill. In my experience, it is the only Bill on which the promoters had no independent professional witness. I read out to the House the findings of the House of Lords. If the authority was the architect, it was the architect of its own failure. It was reticent in seeking advice on a Bill which was proven to be ill drafted from the beginning to the end.

Mr. Barry Field: It is extraordinary that such a long-established and respected Member of Parliament should tell Conservative Members that there is no way in

which the employees of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority should share in the flotation of their company. I chaired the Committee that considered the private Bill which I believe was the architect of this legislation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that many expert witnesses came before us, not least from the Department of the Transport. There were serious question marks about the true legal status of trust ports. That is why there is good reason for re-examining the position in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Leadbitter: I merely say that the port is in desperate need of an early decision. The uncertainty has gone on long enough, and it is doing harm to the port. If the Government find that objectives have been met, a re-run will do more harm than good.
It is unfortunate that debates of this sort are so short. It is not fair to those who occupy the Government and Opposition Front Benches. The matters under discussion have wide implications. I shall continue my correspondence with the Department in a reasonable way on the basis of fact and not of innuendo and suggestion. I shall seek to promote the interests of the port. I made it abundantly clear that, following privatisation legislation, I would work with the successor company to try to ensure success. Perhaps that was going too far for a good socialist, but I meant what I said. I want to see a decision made and silly complaints put aside. Let us get on with implementing decisions which were deemed to have been arrived at properly.

Mr. Tim Janman: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on taking the opportunity, when considering the Ports Bill on Report, to change the clawback provisions as set out when the proposed legislation was first published. I refer specifically to removing deemed disposals from the clawback provisions and taking up the idea, which I and my hon. Friends introduced in Committee, of a sliding scale of percentages for the clawback levy over 10 years. On behalf of the port of Tilbury, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for pushing through the idea that I and my hon. Friends advanced.
It is important that anything that is done for the ports is undertaken in the spirit of encouraging initiative, risk-taking and entrepreneurial activity. It is important, of course, that we do nothing to reduce the chances of such activity taking place. I wish to correct the implication of the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that I have been suggesting that the slight imperfections that I detect in the order will undermine the viability of the port of Tilbury. That is nonsense. The viability of the port would be undermined by a continuation of the dock labour scheme. That would be a continuation of the counter-productive and cynically negative activities that the shop stewards at the port used to get up to. That is what would undermine the port's viability.

Mr. Moate: And the election of a Labour Government.

Mr. Janman: Indeed—my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I am concerned about some parts of the order. When the consultative draft order was published, I think that it is fair to say that it took everyone by surprise in the industry. That was because it included a clawback


provision for not just the sale of land where there would be a windfall profit, but also a provision for the leasing of land.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that I wrote on 20 November 1991 to the effect that I was very concerned about what seemed to be the inclusion of leases where land was to be used for operational purposes—not for property development or the like, but directly related to normal, traditional port activities, or for the manufacture of goods and services within the confines of the port.
I wrote to my hon. Friend on 20 November expressing my concern; my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) did likewise. In his reply, the Minister implied that operational leases would not be included in the provisions of this order. He said:
leases of land which have been used for operational purposes during the six months immediately before the levy period are to be exempted from clawback.
That is welcome, but since the abolition of the dock labour scheme—there is an ever-increasing amount of empirical evidence that abolition was right for the British ports industry—a great deal of new business has been coming to ports such as Tilbury in each quarter.
It is all well and good excluding operational leases in existence up until the six-month period before the port becomes a plc and therefore up until the six months before the levy period starts, but what about operational leases entered into in the following six months? And what about operational leases entered into after privatisation, once the port has become a plc and the clawback levy period has started?
If my hon. Friend suggests that there is a problem with defining operational and non-operational leases, that is invalid. He had no difficulty in his letter in defining an operational lease for the period up to six months before the levy period starts. He stated:
The definition of land used for operational purposes used in the draft order follows the definition of port operational purposes used in the Town and Country Planning Act General Development Order 1988.
So we have a good definition of a lease for operational purposes. If that definition can be used for the period up to six months before the levy period begins, it can equally be used for leases within the six-month period and after the levy commences.
There are good grounds for my hon. Friend to re-examine this matter. Including such leases under the clawback provision is not fair to the port and is counter-productive to our aims and objectives.
The wonderful extrapolation by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North—that I suggest that the order will undermine the viability of the ports—is of course quite wrong. Compared with the positive aspects of the Ports Act and of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, the negative aspects of this order are small indeed, but if we are to help our ports into a far more entrepreneurial environment, we should take every opportunity to maximise such development.
Earlier today, I had a debate on the telephone with one of my hon. Friend's officials about this subject. The first argument put to me to defend the inclusion of operational leases is that, after the port is sold and if there is wasteland in the port that it wants to develop for operational purposes, the price of that wasteland will reflect its value when the port is sold.
That is rather like saying that, if I buy a house from someone and use my money and initiative to improve that house, or if I lease out a wing of the house and someone else spends money on improving that wing, I should then pay a tax to the person from whom I bought the house. Yet that is what the order stipulates.
Nor is it reasonable to say that, because the port will get relief on the costs of doing whatever has to be done to that land to turn it into whatever it is to be used for, it will neutralise the extra clawback levy that the port will pay. If the port is to retain the freehold and is only leasing the land to somebody for operational purposes, it is often not the port itself that will incur the costs of what has to be done on the land to turn it into whatever it has to be turned into: it will be the person who is leasing the land who will bear those costs. Therefore, the benefit of the relief will not accrue to the port, yet the port will still have to pay a levy because it has leased the land for operational purposes.
Time is short and other hon. Members wish to speak; I hope that the debate will not be hijacked for the purpose of a debate about Tees and Hartlepool. The order is important. I do not wish to oppose the order, because it is only one facet of the overriding objective, which is to get ports like Tilbury into the private sector quickly so that they can be run efficiently in a spirit of enterprise and risk-taking, but unless my hon. Friend has the opportunity at the end of the debate to reassure me on my concerns about the order, equally I do not think that I can go into the Aye Lobby either.
It is important to take measures to make sure that windfall gains are properly taxed, but equally it is important not to put through the House an order which in some way, however small, will create an unnecessary barrier to the risk-taking and entrepreneurial activity that we wish to see in our ports.

Mr. James Wallace: I will try to be brief because other hon. Members, some with constituency interests, wish to speak. When the section under which the order is being made came before the House on Report, it did so after a defeat in Committee. At that time my right hon. and hon. Friends supported the clause. We felt that, if a port had been transferred into the private sector, and there were windfall gains, it was not unreasonable, in order perhaps to discourage land speculation, that some of the gains should be taxed.
We would argue again that, if there were a windfall gain to be taxed, it should not necessarily be the Government who would benefit from the windfall. It is not unreasonable that some of the revenue from the levy should be reinvested in the community of the port where the tax was raised, not least given the amount of investment which the community would often have to make—for example, in the road infrastructure to support the port. Therefore, when we have an order implementing detailed parts of the section, it might be perverse to oppose it in principle.
That said, I think that the Minister owed it to the House to respond to three points made in the report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. First, there is the failure in article 25(2) to define a precise time when land use for non-operational purposes begins. Secondly, there was no understanding among those who gave evidence to the Committee about what was meant by a tested telex.
Thirdly, the Committee was concerned about the loose drafting of article 36. Is there or is there not a requirement to furnish documents under that provision? As the Committee pointed out, there are penal provisions attached to the failure to provide such documents. Therefore, the circumstances in which they ought to be provided should be clear. I hope that the Minister will respond to the serious points raised by the Committee.
There are hon. Members from the Tees and Hartlepool district who wish to make important constituency points. I shall make two related observations. First, on a number of occasions in Committee and on Report the Minister said that one of the Government's objectives in supporting the privatisation of ports was to encourage employee and management buy-outs.
In Committee on 12 February, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), the Minister said:
The ports would have objectives that would need to be agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. They would need to include obtaining the best price for the port, taking into account other considerations such as future plans for the port, and employee-management participation levels."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 February 1991; c. 45]
That was embodied in section 5(3) of the Act, which states that the Minister
shall have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of equity share capital
to management-employee consortia.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: I wish to be brief, so I will proceed.
Clearly, the Secretary of State is minded to approve the scheme for a port with only a 5 per cent. equity holding for employees or management, which is not what any of us understood by the substantial encouragement of which the Minister spoke when the Bill was being discussed.
I am sure that, if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has a chance to speak, he will wish to comment on the proposals for the movement to the private sector of the Clyde port authority, where those who have been the driving force behind the privatisation measure have placed considerable emphasis on encouraging an employee-management buy out. What price is to be paid for their encouragement for that option now, and for the other factors that they are said to have agreed with the Government in relation to the need to maintain substantial control of that company in west central Scotland?
Yesterday's Financial Timesreported that, to avoid future embarrassment, the Department of Transport has put a blackout on any information on the bids tendered for further privatisations. In a document that I received yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport said that he was once a supporter of freedom of information. That claim looks pretty hollow when we hear that a blackout has been placed on information for no other reason than to cover up future embarrassment caused to the Department of Transport. That is no reason for the secrecy. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say that the Financial Timesreport is incorrect and that openness will be the hallmark of future privatisations of ports wishing to take that option.

Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right to remind the House that the order comes before us partly as as result of a vote in Committee on an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), which inflicted a defeat on the Government. As a result of that vote, the proposals are much less harsh than they might have been, in relation both to the period in which the clawback provisions apply and to the rate of levy that applies. On that occasion, we were supported by the Opposition, but it is a mark of their confusion that, having secured that excellent result, they are now going to vote against it.
However, we should not be surprised at that, because the Labour party was confused on the major issue of the ports levy, which was set at 50 per cent. Its members tabled an amendment to increase that level to 100 per cent. and then voted in support of an amendment that successfully reduced it to 10 per cent. That shows their total confusion on the matter, so nothing should surprise us this evening.
I warmly welcome the principles of the order, but I am tempted by the Minister's express statement—I think that the record will show that I am right—that the Tees and Hartlepool bid could not be finally consummated until the order was passed. If that is so, it is proper to say that we should perhaps defer the decision until there has been ample time to review it, as it might well prove an unfortunate one.
I understand and respect the point made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), that indecision must be unhelpful to the port, but we are entitled to be worried, for the reasons so properly expressed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We incorporated through amendments supported by both sides of the House provisions for substantial management-employee participation. We were assured again and again that that was a primary objective. In fact, I understand that the criteria used in the management-employee buy-out bid were guided largely by the views expressed by the House.
I understand also that the employee bid was for 100 per cent. of the equity, but that the successful bidder is offering only 5 per cent. participation to management and employees. The order is part of a whole package of measures designed to help the management-employee buy-out.
The House went further. A specific provision giving some advantage to management and employees was incorporated, but I understand that that has been interpreted as just a 5 per cent. price advantage, which I do not believe accurately reflects the intentions of the House or the assurances given by Ministers.
It is hard for right hon. and hon. Members to judge whether the bidding process was totally fair, unfettered, and proper in every respect, Perhaps it was. However, I believe that other ports and the public are entitled to be worried.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will carefully examine the whole process—the first in the chain—to determine whether it should not be thoroughly reviewed, perhaps even with a view to going through the bidding process once again or moving to the alternative of flotation. It is vital that the ports industry should get it right, and many of us feel at this moment that it has not done so.

Mr. McLoughli: rose——

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice, because my genuine view is that the House has been given insufficient time to debate this important issue.
I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Standing Order No. 14(1)(b), which states inter alia:
Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later: Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of the opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting".
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in all conscience to adhere to that Standing Order and to adjourn the debate at midnight.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raises an important point. I accept that there is a serious problem in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority area. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) and others of my hon. Friends were unsuccessful in catching your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but not because you did not want to call them. The Minister rose to reply, and my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who could have made a major contribution to the debate, was prevented from doing so. No reference has been made to two major port authorities in Scotland—Forth, located in my constituency, and Clydebank. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right to submit that, under the Standing Orders, you should exercise the power vested in you to adjourn this debate until tomorrow or the next convenient sitting.
The Minister is laughing, but this is no laughing matter. It is a very serious matter when my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh and the interests of two important Scottish port authorities are excluded from the debate—not at the will of the Chair but because only a restricted amount of time had been allocated to debate the issue.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to exercise the power vested in you and to adjourn the debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have here the report of a Select Committee which sat for a full day and which concluded that the order was defectively drafted in three respects. If we are to end the debate with no reference to that conclusion being made by the Government, are we not failing to do our job?
Do you think that Standing Orders should be treated seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Do you think that they are more than just a load of codswallop? If so, I suggest that you take account of the fact that, in a debate lasting an hour and a half, not one reference has been made to the conclusion reached by a Committee consisting of four hon. Members—who had considered the order for a full morning—that it had been defectively drafted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now raising a point for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
Let me respond to the two earlier points of order. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak in debates on orders lasting for an hour and a half. Tonight's circumstances are therefore not unusual. I must tell the hon. Members concerned that I am not prepared to grant their requests.

Ms. Walley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to what you have said. However, given the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wished to speak, and whose constituencies contain trust ports—hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) who have spent a long time preparing for tonight's debate—and given the points that have been raised, will you at least tell us whether you will discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker and give a further consideration, if you cannot give a ruling now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, and I have given the House my decision.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlebrough): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on an entirely different point? We should like some guidance on the principle of ministerial statements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) read out the response given to a private notice question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). In his response on 18 December, the Secretary of State said that he was minded to accept the recommendations of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. The Ports Act 1991 was perfected on 31 December.
The Minister is right to say that tonight's proceedings are not relevant to the Act or to the decision in relation to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. However, tonight he made a statement to the House that conflicted with his response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton, South. He said then that he would look carefully at all the representations that had been made and that until he had completed the process he would not endorse the recommendations. He therefore made a ministerial statement to the House without the application of the normal convention that Opposition Members can put questions to him. We, as Back-Bench Members, have been deprived of our right to demand a ministerial statement and the normal cut and thrust of debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a speech in the guise of a point of order. I call the Minister.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in assuming that the Minister must seek the leave of the House to address the House a second time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not on this occasion.

Mr. McLoughlin: What we are witnessing is Labour's total opposition to the privatisation of trust ports. Labour Members hide behind the mask of support for management-employee buy-outs; yet, whenever we have debated this question, they have used every possible


opportunity to obstruct the process of the sale of trust ports. Now they are shedding crocodile tears because they have not received some of the answers that they wanted.
As made clear, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is looking into the representations carefully and he will not make a final decision on the sale until that process is complete. I do not believe that it would be right to add anything further to that subject now.
It has become clear from the debate that the Opposition are determined to oppose the privatisation of trust ports. They are now trying to hide behind that by saying that on every occasion we should provide an option for a management-employee buy-out, irrespective of the price. If we had considered doing that, the labour party would have accused us of selling off assets on the cheap as it has on many occasions in the past.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 136.

Division No. 37]
[12.00


AYES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothlerry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dunn, Bob


Ashby, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Fearn, Ronald


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, Sir John


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heathcoat-Amory, David





Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, James
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howells, Geraint
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Jackson, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Key, Robert
Sims, Roger


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Speed, Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Speller, Tony


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knowles, Michael
Squire, Robin


Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Latham, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stephen, Nicol


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Livsey, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Thompson, Sir D.(Calder Valley)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John



MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Madel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mans, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville


Maude, Hon Francis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Miller, Sir Hal
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mills, Iain
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Ward, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Watts, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wells, Bowen


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wheeler, Sir John


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Whitney, Ray


Nelson, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Norris, Steve
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Page, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Porter, David (Waveney)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)






Barron, Kevin
McAllion, John


Battle, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bell, Stuart
McFall, John


Boyes, Roland
McKelvey, William


Bradley, Keith
McMaster, Gordon


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McWilliam, John


Caborn, Richard
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Canavan, Dennis
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Martlew, Eric


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Maxton, John


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morgan, Rhodri


Corbett, Robin
Morley, Elliot


Cousins, Jim
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cox, Tom
Mullin, Chris


Crowther, Stan
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
O'Brien, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
O'Hara, Edward


Dalyell, Tam
O'Neill, Martin


Darling, Alistair
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dewar, Donald
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dobson, Frank
Redmond, Martin


Doran, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rogers, Allan


Eastham, Ken
Rooney, Terence


Enright, Derek
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ruddock, Joan


Flynn, Paul
Short, Clare


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


George, Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Snape, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Soley, Clive


Grocott, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Steinberg, Gerry


Haynes, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Henderson, Doug
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hinchliffe, David
Turner, Dennis


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Walley, Joan


Home Robertson, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hoyle, Doug
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Winnick, David


Illsley, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ingram, Adam
Worthington, Tony


Kilfoyle, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lamond, James



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Martyn Jones.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Ports Act 1991 (Levy on Disposals of Land, etc.) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th January, the Ways and Means Motions in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to Stamp Duty may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[ Mr. Boswell.]

Health Services (Mid-Glamorgan)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Allan Rogers: I express my appreciation for the opportunity to address the House on the important matter of the planning and development of health services in Mid-Glamorgan. Due to time constraints, I must confine my remarks to the Rhondda and Taff-Ely district, served by the East Glamorgan general hospital. That area is covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), and I know that they hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little later in the debate. To enable them to participate, I shall have to be rather cryptic. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to provide fuller answers in writing if he cannot get in at the end of the debate.
I am very concerned about the level of health service provided for my constituents. In voicing my concerns, I make it abundantly clear at the beginning that there is no criticism from any of us of staff in all sectors of the health service in Mid-Glamorgan. All the staff labour mightily, often in difficult circumstances, to provide health care for my constituents. All my complaints and criticisms arise from points that have been brought to my attention by people who work in the health service.
The catchment area of the district general hospital and of the Rhondda valley is, by any socio-economic indicator, a poor region of Wales and of the United Kingdom. That is not the fault of the people who live there. It is part of our inheritance, as is our radicalism and our peculiar and particular valley culture.
The area is one of high morbidity, demanding an equally high standard of medical input if that morbidity is to be effectively treated. Even after allowing for differences in the age and sex structure of the population, Mid-Glamorgan has a standardised mortality rate 13 per cent. above that for England and Wales as a whole. The rate is higher than in any other county in England and Wales except Cleveland and Durham. Let us consider the childhood morality figures. The infant mortality rate in mid-Glamorgan is 9·4 per cent. higher than the average, whereas in Wales as a whole it is 8 per cent. higher. The perinatal morality rate in Mid-Glamorgan is 10·1 per cent. higher than the average; in Wales as a whole, it is 8·3 per cent. higher.
My first question to the Minister is this: what account is taken of social deprivation factors in calculating the moneys available to Mid-Glamorgan for health care? I understand that social deprivation is not taken into the calculation, and I am absolutely amazed at that. As I understand it, it is taken into account in some English regions. If that is the case, why cannot it be taken into account in the allocation of resources to health authorities in Wales? Social deprivation creates greater health demands, and extra resources are needed if only to introduce some equity into the health care provided across the whole of Wales.
The crucial problem facing us in Mid-Glamorgan is the underfunding of the service, which has culminated in the deterioration of the fabric of the buildings, although successive managements have tried hard to patch them up. The underfunding is also apparent in the waits for new and


replacement equipment, and in the fact that consultant staff have to spend much of their time in argument—sometimes quite bitter argument—about equipment priorities.
Underfunding also means that proper staffing levels cannot be reached, and inadequate remuneration is available for those who are employed—particularly ancillary and domestic staff. Highly skilled medical secretaries are paid at levels way below those paid in outside industry.
Competent managers have struggled hard to balance the books to keep departments open but have sometimes failed. The high dependency unit in the district general hospital is a classic example. It has been completed for six months but it cannot be opened because of the lack of staff to operate it.
In the district general hospital, there are insufficient medical beds. I should have thought that, in this day and age, every patient with an acute medical illness ought to have the right to be admitted to a medical bed in a district general hospital. That is often not the case.
There are insufficient cardiac care beds. For a number of years, the health authority has admitted that the coronary care unit, which at present has only four beds, is half the size that it should he according to NHS norms. It is ironic that, in an area with a high incidence of coronary heart disease, many patients cannot be admitted to the specialist high care area to which they deserve to be admitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and I have been most concerned about the admissions policy of the health authority, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to refer to that a little later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In Taff Ely and Rhondda, there is a shortage of medical consultant staff. There are almost twice as many medical consultants per head of population in Merthyr and Cynon valley as in Taff Ely and Rhondda. Underfunding has had a devastating effect on the morale of the staff in the service. It has led to the resignation of three of the nine medical consultants appointed to Taff Ely and Rhondda in the past 20 years. The fact that one third of those medical consultants have voted with their feet—something unheard of in other hospitals—clearly indicates the poor working conditions in the area and the demoralisation of the consultant work force. It cannot be said that these are the underpaid members of the health service. These are not problems of the past. The last consultant to resign left work only last week, and it has been disclosed to me that, because of the conditions in which they have to work, others are contemplating leaving.
The resources coming into the area as a whole are inadequate. We all suffer from this problem, but there is additional inequity in Mid-Glamorgan. Health resources are not distributed equitably, and once again the valleys are losing out. I emphasise that this maldistribution must be seen in the context of a total lack of resources. This reinforces my argument for the provision of more resources for the area as a whole. Reasons for the maldistribution have been put forward. For example, it has been said that the area of Bridgend has more representatives on the health authority than other parts of the county have. It is a question either of better lobbiers or of better voters. In any case, it seems to us that the traffic is one way—from the valleys to the south.
With regard to membership of the health authority, all Mid-Glamorgan Members of Parliament are appalled at the Secretary of State's appointment in the past year or so

of authority members who do not even live in the authority's area. Those friends of the Tory party and friends of the Minister have not been appointed because of their involvement in the community. That is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will rectify as soon as we win the election, which will be shortly.
The Rhondda valley, which represents one half of the district, is obviously of particular concern to me. My constituents are extremely worried about the delay in the construction of a second community hospital in the lower part of the Rhondda. The Minister was present at the opening of the new community hospital in the upper Rhondda. That is a splendid facility, but the Minister will acknowledge that, with the closure of two older but perfectly adequate hospitals, there has been a decrease in the number of beds. Almost all the beds available in the community hospital are for geriatric or psycho-geriatric patients. There are no extra acute facilities.
If we get a new district general hospital, it will lead to the closure of the Llwynypia hospital in the southern part of the constituency, and the hospital service in the Rhondda will become a geriatric ghetto with no acute facilities at all. My constituents in the top part of the Rhondda will have a 20-mile journey for the most mundane examinations and treatment. Why are maternity services being transferred from Llwynypia hospital? Hospital births are not now possible in the Rhondda. When I have raised the matter, I have been told that there is no demand for those facilities and that the existing facilities are under-used. Yes, they are under-used, but that is because mothers are not encouraged to use them. It is a pretty old trick to run down a facility to such an extent that people do not or cannot use it and then to use that as an excuse for closing it down.
There is no 24-hour accident and emergency service, and out-patient facilities are appalling and cramped. Morale among staff working in such conditions is at an all-time low. I could quote from an unsolicited letter received on 20 December, but shortage of time prevents my doing so. The writer did not want to have his name divulged as he felt that if it were known that he had given the information he would be victimised.
The rundown in services has caused a substantial problem in the Rhondda. Communities such as mine have depended on heavy industry. If we are to keep our population, which is declining, and if we are to keep our young people in modern houses, which are being built in some sectors, they must have the facilities to keep them there. Otherwise, they will leave. The valley communities, with their special culture and special background, will end up empty—like wild west towns which have served their purpose and closed down. I recently visited an old friend with whom I worked in Montana, and I went to him to an old mining town that had been closed. Only two or three people live in the town, whereas about 4,000 people once lived and worked there. I do not want my communities to end up like that. That is why I am anxious that we get facilities back into the Rhondda.
I can remember when bad mistakes were made by the Welsh Office. I am not being political—I do not know when the original decision was made. When it was decided to build the University hospital in Cardiff and the so-called Cardiff plan was introduced, it was decided to have one centre of excellence in south Wales or in the eastern part of south Wales. The valleys were drained of services in


Caerphilly, Aberbargoed, Llwynypia and Porth hospitals, to which the miners had contributed out of their own pockets. All the facilities and staff were drained out of Cardiff.
Fortunately, when the Mid-Glamorgan health authority was set up—I sat on the authority when it was set up in 1973—we stopped the Cardiff plan dead. We stopped the closure of those community hospitals. Medical opinion—or bureaucratic opinion. I should say—which runs the health service within our structures has now caught up with us. It now realises that the development of community hospitals is needed in our valleys.
We also have the problem of the district general hospital. By odd coincidence, although it serves primarily the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and myself, it is situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who therefore has a very strong vested interest in it.
I wish that the Minister would listen rather than talk to the Government Whip. Perhaps the Whip could leave the Minister alone for a moment so that I could address him. Is the construction of that district general hospital to go ahead? In a private conversation—he will not mind my repeating it—the Minister said, "We have given authority and approval." I went back to the health authority and said, "Why do you not go ahead and build it?" It said, "We have had approval for the design, but we have not had the money approved." I will gladly give way to the Minister. Will he give the assurance that he gave in answer to me during a radio programme as well as in a telephone conversation? Will he say that Mid-Glamorgan can have the money to proceed immediately with the district general hospital?
It is no good the Minister saying that it is up to the health authority. Under the new financial arrangements, it being an item worth more than £4 million capital expenditure, the decision is now to be made by the Welsh Office. The decision does not now lie with the health authority. Will the Minister give the assurance that he gave me, that the health authority can now proceed with the new district general hospital?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I shall do so when I reply.

Mr. Rogers: I thank the Minister. While he is at it, could he also say what size it will be? The Percy Thomas Partnership did a survey on the need for hospital beds in the Rhondda some years ago. It said that, in order to meet health needs, a hospital of 800 beds was required. There is a huge population in that area. I now understand that there is a proposal to construct a hospital of 530 beds. That is just not adequate. It is smaller than the present hospital in Church Village. In 10 years, we shall have the same problems and, as a consequence, the service will operate on a split site.
There is enormous concern about the fact that psychiatric services will not be provided at the new hospital. A consultant has written to me, stating:
I am writing to you to express my own very deep concern, and that of my colleagues working in psychiatry…that the new District General Hospital planned at Ynys Y Plwm will have no provision for the treatment of psychiatric patients as part of its first phase…The Mid Glamorgan strategy for the development of Mental Health Services has been based on belief in the idea of the devolution of psychiatric services from

hospitals which are isolated from other parts of the medical and social services, instead of linking them with the mainstream of these services, as near as possible to the patients' homes…It is particularly ironic that the closure of one psychiatric ghetto, Parc Hospital, in 1993 will now be closely followed by the establishment of another, more so at a time when a new District General Hospital Psychiatric Unit is being built at Bridgend.
Will the Minister give us an assurance that psychiatric services will be included at the new district general hospital? We grew up with our mentally ill friends, families and neighbours being committed to vast institutions which depersonalised them. We moved from that Victorian concept of care for the mentally ill to the point where we look after them in the community on a decent, caring basis. It would be utterly wrong to exclude psychiatric services from the main stream of hospital services. We do not want another psychiatric ghetto in Mid-Glamorgan.
I shall conclude because several of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I plead with the Minister to look carefully at Mid-Glamorgan's case. We need extra money and decisions to be taken soon in the interests of serving the people of that area.

Dr. Kim Howells: I hope that the Minister will realise that I, too, have a great deal to say, but no time in which to say it. I also hope that he will give us the straight answers that he often has in the past, although we might not have agreed with them.
I should like to amplify a couple of points that have already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). We should like to know whether we are to have a new district general hospital at the Ynys-y-Plwm site, and how large it will be. Is the Minister aware of the concerns that have been expressed to us by consultants, staff, auxiliaries and everyone else who is concerned with health care about what they perceive to be a lack of adequate planned space and facilities at the new hospital? They are afraid that the new facility will be smaller than the existing one and that many of the units, many of which were named by my hon. Friend, will not be adequately replaced in terms of space and facilities at the new hospital.
They are especially worried about the departments of paediatrics and physiotherapy. There is a famous physiotherapy centre at Talygarn, which Mid-Glamorgan health authority proposes to close. We have been told that it will be all right and that "space will be found at the new hospital to replace it". But that is not the perception of those who have seen the plans, who are extremely worried that those important functions will not be catered for in the new hospital. I should like to know whether that will be the case.
The Minister will know that there is a spending crisis at East Glamorgan hospital. The funding crisis involves a current overspend of about £900,000. What will the Minister do to ensure that that does not involve the closure of wards or the non-reopening of certain wards that have been closed for refurbishment? I am sure that he agrees that in an area of social deprivation, such as Mid-Glamorgan, there are great inadequacies in the provision of speech therapy, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy for children. What will be those areas' future health provision under the new hospital provision plans that are being hatched in the Welsh Office and Mid-Glamorgan?
We are talking not simply about community services but about combined services by both hospitals and communities, in just the same way as is required for mental health services under the new legislation. Many of us are worried that ambulance services are greatly stretched in Mid-Glamorgan and especially in the Rhondda and Taff-Ely areas. We are worried that there may be instances in which adequate ambulance cover is not provided.
I ask the Under-Secretary to ensure that never again will an admissions policy such as that operated by Mid-Glamorgan for so long be pursued. The over-70s were treated almost as if they were the walking dead. They did not qualify for the cardiac facilities and treatments offered to people under that arbitrary age. I hope that the Minister has something to say about that.
The staff of Mid-Glamorgan and especially East Glamorgan hospitals are doing a magnificent job. They deserve much better facilities. The fabric of East Glamorgan is falling apart. I hope that the Minister will tell us that we shall get a new hospital.

Mr. Ray Powell: I shall be brief because of the time factor. We want a response from the Minister to all the questions that have been put to him. We hope to see a hospital established one (lay. It will not be in the lifetime of the Government, because they have only a few months to go. There is no doubt that it will need a Labour Government to establish a hospital in Ynys-y-Plwm to cater for the population in the area, and especially in Taff-Ely, the Rhondda and the part of the Ogmore constituency that stretches to Ynys-y-Plwm.
Promises have been made in the past. My hon. Friend for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred to the Princess of Wales hospital and the facilities in the Bridgend area. It took 25 years of campaigning in that area to establish the hospital in the Bridgend area. The services do not fulfil the promises made by the area health authority when it closed the small hospitals in the Ogwr borough area. The authority said that the Princess of Wales hospital phase I would be developed to replace the services. Indeed, the Minister of State, Welsh Office promised me in 1983 that he would have phase 2 established immediately following the completion of phase I. We are still waiting for phase 2 to be developed in Bridgend. We are well under-provided for in the Bridgend area.
Therefore, it is more necessary now for Ynys-y-Plwm hospital to be established. I eagerly await the Minister's reply, and promises not only from him but from the area health authority. I endorse what my hon. Friends have said about the disturbed condition of hospital services, especially in East Glamorgan. East Glamorgan is in a terrible state of repair, decoration and equipment. The staff are becoming frustrated daily and leaving the service. We cannot afford to allow that to continue.
I would like to speak for much longer, because the hospital will be established in part of my constituency. I hope that the area health authority will read in Hansardthe speeches made tonight and take note of them. I hope that, in future discussions about Ynys-y-Plwm, it will include me among those whom it invites to discuss the problems of some 15,000 to 20,000 of my constituents who will be in the catchment area. I hope that the Minister will have sufficient time to reply to the questions that we have put to him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is a little optimistic if he thinks that in four minutes I can reply adequately to the debate. I assure the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that I will look through everything that they have said and write to them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on obtaining this debate. It is an achievement to obtain an Adjournment debate. However—the hon. Gentleman knows that I am going to say this—most of the matters that he has raised are for the district health authority. I am sure that the chairman of the authority and his colleagues will look carefully at the remarks made in the debate.
I have visited seven facilities in Mid-Glamorgan during the past year. At five of them, I was opening new facilities; at one I was attending the opening of a new facility by Lord Tonypandy, which was named after him—ysbyty George Thomas. The hon. Member for Rhondda was present when Lord Tonypandy opened that facility. There have been considerable achievements in Mid-Glamorgan during the past year, one of which was the opening of a new regional treatment centre. Mid-Glamorgan now has two of the four centres.
I acknowledge that the Rhondda area is one of great social deprivation. Of the 11 wards, four are in the top five of the index and nine are in the top 50. That has been recognised in our urban programme. We have given £2 million to the Rhondda this year, a higher amount than to any other district in Wales. The health authority has received £16·5 million in total under the programme for the valleys initiative for 17 schemes, one of which was the new community hospital in the Rhondda, ysbyty George Thomas. The know-your-midwife scheme received £120,000 under the programme of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for the valleys initiative. A further £36,000 is being made available during the current financial year to complete the pattern of service in the Rhondda valleys.
The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned the new formula. It helps health authorities because it weights the population of an area according to the social problems in terms of the age of the population and of ill health. It will be of great importance to the health authority.
The hon. Member for Rhondda asserted that the health authority was underfunded. We are spending about £204 million this year, which is a cash increase of 11·3 per cent. Expenditure in Mid-Glamorgan, after inflation, has risen by 34 per cent. since 1979. During the same period, there has been capital investment of £127 million. I am glad to say that, as a result, activity in Mid-Glamorgan has increased considerably. Between 1974 and 1979, in-patient numbers rose by 9 per cent., and they have risen by 40 per cent. since then. Day case surgery decreased by 29 per cent. under the Labour Government, but since then it has increased by 840 per cent. As for new out-patients, it was minus 2 per cent. during 1974–79; it has increased by 29 per cent. under the Conservative Government. I congratulate the Mid-Glamorgan health authority on its excellent work.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave approval for a new district general hospital at Ynys-y-Plwm only last April. It will cost about £70 million, and it will have about 529 beds.
It will be a brand new health facility for the Rhondda area by the end of the century, and I believe that it will be the best in Europe. Far from criticism, we can see an excellent record of achievement by the Mid-Glamorgan health authority—new facilities, high expenditure and many

improvements in the health service. I am committed, as the Minister who is responsible for health in Wales, to continue that.
I am sorry that I have had only four minutes to reply to the debate. I shall respond in writing to the detailed questions of hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.